ARDS: AR-15 Derangement Syndrome

0 Shares
178835538

While I have no doubt that most Democrats would prefer the massacre at the Washington Navy Yard had not occurred, I can’t help but notice they’ve seem to devolve into predictably partisan shrieking faster than first lady Michelle Obama can do the “Dougie.” For people who supposedly live by the credo “never let a crisis go to waste,” as expressed by Rahm Emanuel (former White House chief of staff and current mayor of the windy shootout known as Chicago), they don’t exactly focus when the chips are down.

Witness the newest lapdog media malady: ARDS (AR-15 derangement syndrome). When it turned out that Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis didn’t employ an AR-15 (a semi-automatic replica of a military weapon) in his killing spree, they did what all self-respecting liberal pseudo-journalists did; they doubled down on the wrong bet.

CNN, led by the Gen. Charles Cornwallis of television, Piers Morgan, spent the entire day of the massacre blaming the Navy Yard shootings on the AR-15. Morgan even revisited the site of his earlier rhetorical Yorktowns with his usual rants about “killing machines.” Unable to contextualize the object of their rage, CNN also ran a story on Tuesday entitled “Navy Yard shooting: AR-15, back in the news — briefly,” arguing that although the AR-15 wasn’t involved, that in no way diminishes the gun’s obvious evil. The writer even repeated the “killing machine” line and added some statements about rates of fire that he must have gleaned from watching Jean-Claude Van Damme movies. “An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semi-automatic mode.” Put aside the fact that an AR-15 doesn’t function in any other mode, and flex your trigger finger as fast as you can for a minute. Try that with so much as a Red Ryder BB gun, and you’d have better luck yelling at the target. It’s worth noting that CNN’s story retracting its erroneous allegation against a firearm that Alexis didn’t use mentioned a rifle that Alexis didn’t use 19 times — 16 times more than it mentioned Alexis.

MSNBC paraded the usual coterie of unlikable politicos vomiting up the usual platitudes about so-called “gun violence.” But it really worked some left-wing magic when it aired a computer-generated animation that included Alexis using, of course, an AR-15. Perhaps MSNBC could computer-generate a respectable audience.

But the patient with the worst case of ARDS I’ve ever seen would be the New York Daily News, whose meager subscriber base was treated to this magnificent bit of journalistic malpractice:

dailynews0918

Officer, I’d like to report a murder. It was Mike Lupica in the break room with the wrong rifle.

Less than two miles from the scene of the crime, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who spent most of last week presuming to reinterpret freedom of the press to include “as long as they voted for Obama,” used Alexis’ crimes to indict the firearm he didn’t use. “There are reports the killer was armed with an AR-15… when he stormed an American military installation in the nation’s capital and took at least 12 innocent lives.” Feinstein finishes a week attacking the 1st Amendment, then follows up with an attack on the 2nd. At this pace, she’ll be pushing to have the 3rd Infantry Division bunking in your basement next weekend.

I understand the anti-Bill of Rights crowd is made up almost exclusively of liberals. I also understand that liberals tend to react to things they don’t understand with almost irrational fear. Given the above examples of ARDS, it’s safe to say they understand firearms — specifically the AR-15 — nearly as well as they understand journalistic integrity. Fortunately, there is a remedy for ARDS. Unfortunately, the anti-Bill of Rights crowd will never learn about it; CNN bumped the story so that Morgan could blame killings on the wrong suspect. Again.

–Ben Crystal

Personal Liberty

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Clinging to my guns and Bible

    Gee, you mean the main stream media (Read: unprincipled totally amoral hacks who hate the 2nd Amendment) lied to us and spewed their masters drivel all over the landscape? Again? Say it isn’t so! SURELY, they all verified their musings before publishing. They get an “F” on integrity and even style points. But since the collective IQ of the low info voter they target is still a low double-digit interger, they are spot-on target —

  • Alex

    Yep, they really dropped the ball on that one, looking more and more foolish as the day unfolded.

    Sick though, that the gun-addicted are so quick to jump on the mammoth error as a way of ignoring the real story— that the Washington massacre marks nearly the TWO-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTIETH mass shooting in this sick nation THIS YEAR!

    A ‘mass-shooting’ is defined as a shooting in which there are four or more victims–so we are averaging just about one such incident EACH DAY. This is absolute insanity, and you accept this as the price for “freedom”? You wacko gun nuts are berserk!

    Though mentally deranged and carrying a criminal background, Aaron Alexis is welcomed by Wayne LaPierre and his NRA Flying Monkeys as a God-gifted member of our “Well-Regulated Militia”.

    Thank goodness the younger generations do not guzzle the Tea and view the Second Amendment as sacrosanct—in time, the Second Amendment will be redefined and reinterpreted by a modern and more forward-looking Supreme Court, or just completely done away with…

    • Jimmy the Greek

      Give it a rest ! If you don’t like our Bill of Rights , you can move to mexico . You would have no problem finding a place to live because most of the mexicans jumped the river into texas !

      • Jeff

        I’m sure you have more problem with the Bill of Rights than does any liberal. And it’s not the Amendments but their interpretation that matters. I’m sure you don’t like the idea of criminal suspects, particularly those darker than yourself, being protected by Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8. And I’ll bet you’re none too fond of the 9th either. Send a postcard from Mexico. I hear it’s lovely this time of year.

        • Don 2

          And how do you feel Jeff, about black people, Hispanics, gays, and lesbians, being able to protect themselves and their families with a concealed handgun, when they are confronted by violent criminals?

          • Jeff

            The same as anyone else, but people in those groups probably own fewer guns per capita than the gun nuts – usually middle class white guys with not a ton of education. I’m nearly 60 and have never felt the slightest need for a gun, so I guess I just don’t understand the feelings of inadequacy you must experience when you just can’t feel that barrel in your pants.

          • Don 2

            I’ll keep my guns, you chickafied types can keep your teddy bear and Barbie dolls.

        • Jimmy the Greek

          You think i am a redneck RLMAO ! No Jeff what you have here Is old school biker ,

    • To Tell The Truth

      The gun-addicted you so easily dismiss just might be looking at the messengers with a jaundiced eye when they consistently lie and spew their liberal, biased lies unabashedly. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel and their ilk will certainly support your hope for a redefined and reinterpreted or completely-done-away-with 2nd Amendment.

    • JRJ21

      Then we will have a police state as you damn communist yearn for.Oh by the way,Americans have obeyed their last gun law and you will probably not enjoy the inferno you are trying to spark as you are defenseless.

    • jzandensky

      When seconds count the cops are just minutes away.
      Thank gosh Alex will stand between the bad guys and us with his(presumably) puffed up hyperbole. These are the well intended who would leave you naked before the wolves. I really dont get that. His notion of “you don’t need the protection tool, and you’re a diminished person, should you think differently”. What I might nudge him to observe: as soft a cuddily as they appear, wolves carry their tools every where they go, and they choose to use them. What would Alex have us do? Remove our jeans because wolves don’t appreciate denim between their teeth?

    • JRJ21

      A citizen hating the second amendment is like an elephant hating his tusk or a lion his claws and teeth.What is it about you libs that you are always wanting the Govt. to have all power,when our founders intended all power including the gun ,be in the hands of the people?

    • Intellectual Conservative

      Here are some actual FACTS for your liberally-impeded mind to consider in your leap to imagine that “assault rifles” are the main threat to our population:

      In 2011, according to FBI STATISTICS, ALL RIFLES (including the idea of an assault rifle that Washington and the media is obsessed with) accounted for 323 of the 8,583 murders. Rifles were used for less than 3.8% of the murders, with about half of them rifles that could be branded with the mythical term of “assault rifles.” Somebody is lying about gun crime, and lying about “assault rifles” and the FBI reveals it to anyone that wants to know.
      Now, the big question: do YOU “want to know” or are you so consumed with defending the left-wing crazies that you will dimiss these actual FACTS and continue to tow your master’s line?

      • Jeff

        Handguns kill more people than rifles. Everyone knows that. So? Does that mean there’s no problem if a potential mass killer has possession of an AR-15 with 100 rounds he can shoot in a minute? If you’re arguing for banning concealable handguns, I’m with you.

    • hippybiker

      I hope you enjoy your stay in the Gulag, Alex. I hope they have some fun and games for you. Maybe the guards will raffle you, your wife and children off for some live entertainment. As for me, I will be on the run causing as much damage to the Communist machine as possible, or maybe I will be dead. No matter, I will be free either way. Die horribly, Punk! WOLVERINES!!!!

    • Don 2

      Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines Alex’s Anti-Gun Mentality
      http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

      • Alex

        Living in fear…

        • Bill

          Alex,
          Just being prepared to deal with all of the new thugs created by the lefts failed economic policies

        • Don 2

          Very good Alex. “Living in fear” is exactly what the psychiatrist, Dr. Sarah Thompson, says drives hoplophobes like yourself.

    • chocopot

      Why don’t you go live someplace you can enjoy living, someplace that has laws you agree with, someplace you can admire, like Cuba, or North Korea, where the people who run the government think just like you.

      • Jeff

        Does it hurt to be so stupid? From here, it looks really painful.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Shouldn’t you have said — “From here, it’s really painful”?

          • Jeff

            No, I said exactly what I meant to say. Chocopot is a moron. During Viet Nam, the hawks used to say exactly the same thing to Doves: “Love it or leave it.” I didn’t realize you also subscribe to such a Neanderthal philosophy, Dave.

    • Adolf Schmidt

      Alex, have you ever noticed that the majority of these shootings are in “gun free zones”? Let’s take a look back and find out who could have been so stupid, as to paint a target on schools and some government installations. Hey, it was Democrat Bill Clinton! Wonder why these shooter pick places where they are so unopposed? Would this have happened if the sign read” Personnel may be armed”? I don’t think so! This man had enough actions in his history that he should of had at least one conviction on his record that would have prevented his background check from being passed! Let’s take another look at who leads the parade on limiting sentences on criminals! We have a winner again with the democratic party! Now let’s take a look at the security of our Country! We are in a war on terror, so let’s pretty much have a open border policy! What’s the chance of any of over 12 million, unknown people being a terrorist? The liberal democrat has put this Country, and it’s people, in inexcusable danger with their policies! Alex, have you noticed how the democrat will make a poor decision, then blame some else when it fails?

      • Mamamia

        The “Personnel” was armed.

        • Adolf Schmidt

          The shipyard was a gun free zone, so was Sandy Hooks and several more schools where mass shootings took place. There may have been armed MP’s in the ship yard but if it takes a average of 19 minutes to respond lik civilians police, they are all but useless in stpping a mass shooting!

      • Mamamia

        How many years has the border been open? How many presidents have vowed to close them?

        • Adolf Schmidt

          Agreed! 9/11 did put a different complexion on things though. Keeping terrorist off our home soil would be difficult with absolute closed borders because of home grown terrorism such as that which took place on Fort Hood! I am not against immigration when channels are followed to reduce the risk of criminals or terrorist getting through. Out of 12 million people that we don’t have any information on, the chances of a few having poor intentions toward our Country is great! What is a acceptable number of people intent on harming our Country or people? Is 1% ok,or 120,000 terrorist? How would the easiest way be to get into our Country undetected? We could ask 12 million illegals for that response!

      • Jeff

        Yes. No one before Bill Clinton knew that schools are not rife with gun carrying cretins. Most teachers went to school because they didn’t want to be police officers. In your loony Right Wing World, everyone would have a gun so everyone else would have to carry one just to say even. Wouldn’t it be better if no one had one? Don’t bother answering; the question is rhetorical.

        • Don 2

          Considering who is committing these mass shootings, it might be better if Democrats/liberals didn’t have guns.

          • Jeff

            Most don’t, but thanks to you gun nuts, if he has a mental breakdown and wants to shoot up a school/church/shopping mall, an AR-15 is as close as the nearest gun shop or gun show.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            Jeff, since you claim to have never owned or shot a gun I can understand why you have to parrot what you’ve been told about guns! The AR-15 is dual purpose weapon. It can be used in close quarters or for longer range shooting, up to several hundred yards! In one of your earlier post you mentioned on the number of rounds they can shoot! Handguns have a quicker cycle time due to the shorter bullet length, and as far as magazine capacity, you can swap a empty clip out of a hand gun in one to two seconds. Large capacity magazines and assault weapons have little or no benefit over a hand gun or shotgun in close quarters such as a school or some malls! I don’t really care if you want a gun or not, but if you are going to debate a topic, at least know something about it!

          • Don 2

            At least we can agree that Democrats are by nature inherently unstable nut jobs.

        • Adolf Schmidt

          Jeff, what you call “A loony Right Wing World” is a world where people understand that there are over 350 million guns in the USA. They understand no matter what laws are passed, guns will find their way into killers hands! If any part of the liberal media is correct, out of all of these mass shootings, it took someone with a gun to stop them! Jeff, I don’t think everyone should have a gun! With the number of liberal leftist committing these shootings, I expect to see your name in the news real soon! If you could have thought of a way to get guns out of the hands of these people, you would have said it I’m sure. Seems like the good ideas by leftist just get more people killed!

          • Jeff

            And why are there so many guns in circulation? It’s because we didn’t enact any sensible gun control 20 or 30 years ago. At this point, you’re probably right. Enacting gun control right now wouldn’t do a lot. Background checks might help a little as might waiting periods, but you gun nuts are so afraid of your own shadows that even those sensible “regulations” seem almost impossible. We’ll see if you change your tune when some lunatic with a gun he bought at a gun show because he’s a nut kills someone close to you.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            I’m not what you would call a gun nut, I just have common sense! If you think things through and try to eliminate the problem without causing other problems. Your group gets pissed and blames everybody but themselves for their own failures! Now rush along to a Democratic discussion where you don’t have to make sense or exercise basic skills! You will fit in much better and be happier too!

          • Jeff

            I have never owned nor fired a gun. Explain how I am to blame for the prevalence of guns and all the mass shootings. And tell me why we have so many more of them than any other civilized country.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            I never blamed you for anything other than diminished mental capacity and reasoning skills! I did say a good number of the laws that have painted a bullseye on the backs of our children and citizens were put in place by the Democratic party! You could ban ALL gun production in the USA today and make it illegal to transfer or purchase any firearm from a dealer or private owner and you would see no difference in your lifetime or ever. The number of gun in the US was over 350 million before Obama spurred the great gun buy of 2012-2013. Over the years, law enforcement will pickup a few of these weapons, but they will create a black market like they did with drugs and alcohol. Over 6,000 people are killed each year over drug traffic between the US Mexico border. Do you remember reading about prohibition? They had to repeal prohibition because it created a black market, and the crime and death that goes along with it! The war on drugs is a great one too! Over 6,000 deaths each year, and we only can stop around 2% of the drugs from making it across the border! These laws have not reduce any crime or death, they increased it! Yet so many people get their panties in a wad when they can’t pass laws just like it!

          • Jeff

            Guns are not alcohol. If prohibiting guns creates a Black Market, then why do other civilized countries that effectively control guns not have these problems? I actually agree with you concerning the War on Drugs. I’ve thought it was stupid from the get-go. As one of the few of my generation who never smoked marijuana, I wrote essays in high school in the early 70s advocating the legalization of marijuana. I am virtually certain that nearly all Democrats in Congress and a good many Republicans agree the War on Drugs needs to end. The problem is few have the political courage to actually advocate it.

            I know you want to confuse the issue, but statistics show a gun in the home will not protect you. A woman with a gun in the home is 8 times more likely to be killed in a domestic dispute. Does that discount the possibility of a gun being helpful in a given instance? Of course not. But it’s helpful to know the numbers.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            I will agree that a gun in the home of a person not educated on its use, and safety can be more dangerous than not having one. I have checked the statistics on Country that are gun free shootings are reduced, but most of them will still have a higher rate of violent crime per capita. These other Countries have traded death by gun for other methods of demise.When a person is killed, I really don’t think that person will find solace if it is not a gun. I had mentioned earlier about the 4 cities in the US accounting for over 90% of the gun deaths. These cities have the strictest gun laws in the Country, the lowest gun ownership, yet the highest death rate by gun! If you would remove these 4 cities, the US would have one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world! I bet you will never guess what political party is in charge of these cities!

          • Jeff

            Local gun control laws are virtually meaningless as the guns come in from elsewhere in the country. The gun violence in, say, Chicago is the impetus for its strict gun laws and not vice versa. Were those gun laws repealed, the violence might be even worse. But any criminal can buy a gun elsewhere and import it into the city so the city’s gun laws are not the cause of the violence.

            If you look at Australia, it would appear that nationwide gun control laws can have a real impact.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            Jeff, I am trying to look for some truth in your statement, so yes, the guns are possibly coming from states or areas with lower gun control regulations.These states that the guns are coming from have some of the highest gun ownership by citizen, yet the lowest gun violence rate! This is where we stop for a minute and try to figure why do states with more guns and lower regulation have fewer accounts of gun violence then areas with the highest regulation and lower citizen gun ownership! The Liberal Democrat are taking on the whole Country Instead of fixing the 4 major cities that produce over 90% of the gun violence! The problem is minimal in the balance of the Country, except for these 4 cities! If the violence problem in these cities was reduced, our Country would have one of the lowest murder rates in the world! Now, which should be easier to fix, 4 cities or the whole Country?

          • Jeff

            Am I supposed to be surprised that big cities have more gun violence than, say, Wyoming?

          • Don 2

            “A gun in the home will not protect you” Really? What a bunch of hogwash!

            Cite your source so that I can chew you up and spit you out.

          • Jeff

            http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

            Have someone read it to you so you can get really, really angry.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          So, Jeff, are you proposing that Government people also be disarmed?

        • Don 2

          “Most teachers went to school because they didn’t want to be police officers” Really? Do you always make crap up as you go along? You mean there are only two career choices in life?

          “In your loony Right Wing World, everyone would have a gun so everyone else would have to carry one just to “say” even.” Another dumb statement. Every day, you walk by more people carrying guns than you can imagine. You’re not staying even now. Has it changed your life?

          Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines Jeff’s Anti-Gun Mentality
          http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

    • independent thinker

      “… that the Washington massacre marks nearly the TWO-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTIETH mass shooting in this sick nation THIS YEAR! ”
      Source

      • independent thinker

        Alex we are still waiting for the source of your otherwise spurious claim.

    • Bill

      Alex,
      As usual, you are making things up again. The shooter was a liberal Obama supporter

      • independent thinker

        From CBC news.

        “Monday’s attack, which left 13 people dead, including the shooter, is the fifth mass shooting in the U.S. this year,”
        I wonder where Alex is hiding the information on the other 245 mass shooting incidents? Incidentally the CBC article defines a mass shooting as three or more killed in an incident one less than Alex’s “statistic”.

      • Jeff

        Why? Because he was Black? He was also a Navy contractor. Does that mean Navy contractors should be under increased scrutiny? Does it make the victims any less dead if he was a Democrat? Would it be OK if a right winger pulled the trigger? Anyone can have a mental breakdown. It’s the ease of getting a gun that turns a personal problem into a national tragedy.

        • Don 2

          “Anyone can have a mental breakdown.” Why are all the mass shooters Democrats or from Democrat/liberal families?

          • Jeff

            Think that if it gets you through the night. Hug your gun real tight.

          • Don 2

            I’ll hug my gun, you hug your teddy bear.

          • Barakolips

            You better keep your job at Burger king, your not making it as a poet or troll.

        • Bill

          Jeff,
          It is the psychiatric drugs he was taking, not the ease of the gun.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Bill says — “The shooter was a liberal Obama supporter”.
          Jeff says — “Why? Because he was Black?”.
          Jeff’s racism aside — NO, Jeff, because a friend of his said so:
          http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/17/shooters-friend-aaron-alexis-was-a-liberal-happy-with-obama/

          Jeff says — “It’s the ease of getting a gun that turns a personal problem into a national tragedy”.
          Dave says — “It’s the difficulty of having a gun which has left so many dead who might otherwise have been able to defend themselves. Jeff and his gun-controlling ilk are accessories to their murders”.

    • Frank Kahn

      And the next day all liberals will die in a righteous blood bath.

      • Jeff

        You really should see a doctor, Frank.

        • Don 2

          I have no doubt that you’ve already seen a shrink or two yourself. What kind of anti-depressants do they have you on Jeff?

    • speedle24

      Now Alex, when these “forward looking” politicos do away with the second amendment at some future day in hell, perhaps you will be the first victim of one of those criminals who couldn’t care less what is legal and illegal. I suspect you may be begging for some “flying monkey” to come to the rescue.

      • Jeff

        It’s not about “doing away” with the 2nd Amendment, but it is about interpreting the Amendment as it was written. We now have the most conservative Supreme Court we’ve had since the 30s and, in Scalia, Alito, and Thomas 3 of the most conservative justices in American history. Yet, even Scalia is not the zealot on the 2nd Amendment you people are. Even Scalia, while ruling that the 2nd Amendment confers a personal right to possess a weapon, realizes that the Government can legitimately limit the type and capacity of those weapons.
        Now, when we have a sane Supreme Court, both clauses of the Amendment will be read and it will be obvious to all but you gun nuts that the Amendment, like the 1st, was meant to limit the power of the Federal Government – in this case to ban weapons from the States. The amendment, unlike any other, contains the words “well regulated.” Who was to do the regulating? Not the NRA, but the States.

        • Average_Joe56

          Jeff, you probably should have paid (some) attention in English Grammar class.
          As passed by the Congress:

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

          The statement: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,”
          is often misunderstood to mean that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms. Well, point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the “unorganized militia” according to the law, but that’s irrelevant, because the second statement:
          “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
          is the important part. This statement is the crux of the amendment and ensures that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed upon. Now, the way this sentence is constructed (in total), the right of the people allows for the well-regulated militia. The militia is a byproduct of the right to bear arms, not a prerequisite. Here is the grammatical break down from the prof:
          [ Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ” militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
          In reply to your numbered questions:
          [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to “a well-regulated militia”?;]
          [ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
          [Schulman: (2) Is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right “shall not be infringed”?;]
          [ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
          [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” null and void?;]
          [ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
          [Schulman: (4) Does the clause “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” grant a right to the government to place conditions on the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
          [ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
          [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase ” well-regulated militia” mean: “well-equipped,” “well-organized,” “well-drilled,” “well-educated,” or “subject to regulations of a superior authority”?]
          [ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
          [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
          [ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
          [Schulman:] As a “scientific control” on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
          “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
          My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
          (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
          (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” – for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
          [ Copperud:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
          (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
          Got it? Good.

          Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.
          Education is a wonderful thing Jeff…get some.

          • Jeff

            Why does no other Amendment contain such a preamble or opening/justifying clause? I get it. You don’t like the thought of any limits on your right to your precious gun. As for the grammar lesson, I’ve seen it before. I don’t believe a Court, in divining the intent of the framers, will be concerned with whether it’s a clause or a present participle any more than it will be concerned with how many Angels can dance on the barrel of an AK-47.
            The point is what was the meaning and intent of the Amendment and how does it relate to the modern world? In this situation, your pedantic argument brings to mind Churchill’s response to an aid correcting him for ending a sentence with a preposition: “This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put.”

          • Average_Joe56

            Once again…..Try an English Grammar course…and please pay attention this time.
            It really doesn’t matter “what you believe”, the facts and Grammar do not change to fit what “you believe”, there are established “rules” for grammar. As for the meaning….it hasn’t changed. it applies the same today as it did when written.
            I am sorry that you don’t like it, but it is what it is. If you wish to change it…try Amending it in the proper fashion…Amend the Constitution…if you think you can. Short of Amendment…the 2nd. Amendment is still the law…as written. Don’t like it? Too bad…so sad….buy a box of tissues….

            “Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.”

            by J. Neil Schulman

            If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
            That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.
            Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
            He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers’ Humanities Award.
            That sounds like an expert to me.

            What were your credentials, again?
            What you “believe” is your problem…What you know, is apparently …very little.
            Want my firearms? Come and get them….let’s see if you can “dance on the barrel of an AK-47″.
            “Dance for me, you little Toad”

          • Jeff

            But an English professor, even assuming he’s correct, cannot shed much light on the intent of the founders in drafting the 2nd Amendment. The first clause is there for a reason regardless the grammatical merits of the words they chose. But is the intent of the framers even the sole determinant? No, it’s not. When Courts determine the 1st or 4th Amendment treatment of some new technology, the analysis may begin with lip-service to what Jefferson might have thought of emails or social media, but it certainly doesn’t end there. At some point sanity has to enter the equation. Statistics (and I got this figure from conservative commentator David Frum) show that a gun in the house is something like 40 times as likely to be used against an occupant as an intruder. I know that means nothing to you because you heard about someone who saved her family from a violent pack of predators. There are also isolated cases where someone in a car crash survived because he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Still, the statistics overwhelmingly support wearing them.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            You are changing gears and getting off topic there Jeff! This is about mass killings and the stopping there of! Somehow you started taking about the dangers to ones self by having a gun in the house! Some people handle poisonous snakes, sky dive, cliff jump and so on! All of these are personal choices not affecting no one but those participating! Having a gun can be dangerous for the unfamiliar, so can all activities I just mentioned!

          • Jeff

            I see it as a different sub-part of the same issue. Yes, handguns kill far more people than assault rifles. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a problem when a nut gets hold of an AR-15 capable of shooting 100 rounds in a minute. Probably a hand gun in the house is more dangerous than an assault rifle as it’s more accessible to a burglar, a kid, or a pissed off spouse.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            You have mentioned the AR-15 being able to shoot 100rds in a minute, so can a 9mm handgun with a regular magazine capacity The shooting at the shipyard lasted about an hour.The type of gun,it’s magazine capacity, or rate of fire almost become irrelevant after this length of time! If the shooter is not stopped within seconds to no more than a minute or two, he could have a bow and arrow and still kill numerous people! The shooting in Chicago that injured 13 had only 16rds fired. The need for a military style weapon was only aesthetic! In spite of the mass shooting this year, the Country is heading for the lowest murder rate in 50 years! There are things that can be done to reduce gun violence without garnishing the freedoms of the whole Country! Education on gun safety(as a elective in school) could reduce accidental shootings! Anger management in school should be mandatory! Gang violence in Chicago has accounted for over 500 shootings this year! I disagree with a police state, but these cities have to be reclaimed by it’s law abiding citizens! It is the few that are causing the problem.Gun control, to the point the president would be satisfied may never happen, and if it does, may cause bigger problems than we already had! It would be in our best interest as a Country to work on the problems that the violence in the first place! These are things we can do now, without dividing the Country!

          • Jeff

            While a professional shooter can reload in a second, most people cannot. Frequently, these mass shooters are disarmed while reloading. The more reloading necessary, the more likely is the shooter to be stopped.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            You have never fired a gun by your own admission! The auto feed hand gun has a button on the side that is pressed to drop the magazine! The next magazine is inserted( can without lowering the gun) press button on the side of the gun, and it is reloaded and shooting again! This takes 2 to 4 seconds without training! Most calls to the police take a average of 19 minutes to respond! Do the math! In 19 minutes, he could of had a musket and still killed that many people! It was almost a hour before the shooter at the shipyard was stopped! The damage these shooter inflict is done long before there is someone there to stop them while they take 2 to 4 seconds to reload!

          • Jeff

            That may well be true although it appears that with assault rifles reloading is a bit more difficult as at least some of the mass shooters have been stopped while attempting to reload. The shooter in Arizona was disarmed by an unarmed person (who was nearly shot by an armed good samaritan). More reloading means fewer deaths.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            Jeff, Jeff Jeff! The guy, according to the press was using a pistol, not a auto handgun! These are as different as night and day as far as reloading! Yes, if all that these guy had was revolvers, reloading would be a pain and slower! I’ve seen people use speed loaders to reduce loading time on revolvers, and they are not nearly as fast as reloading a magazine feed handgun! This is why they came out with the auto loading handgun!

          • Jeff

            I’m not denying any of that nor are my comments limited to this particular shooting. I just think the more difficult it is for nuts to get guns in the first place, get ammo, and have to reload, the better.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            I agree about making it harder for these guys to do their evil! The point I’m making there is no magic killing power these assault style weapons have! Auto loading handguns can handle 50rd magazines. With the option of hollow point bullets and fragmenting bullets, assault style weapons have little or no advantage. And Jeff, just to make sure, you do know these assault style weapons are not machine guns! Every time Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, and many others, are trying to get people to believe these are military equivalent weapons, there not! Either they are lying or they don’t care if they are correct!

          • Average_Joe56

            Yada,yada, yada…….

            Did you forget something?
            What were your credentials, again?

            You appear to have an irrational fear of inanimate objects and I can’t help you with your phobia….it’s an issue that you must work out for yourself. Seek help.

            David Frum? Conservative? LMAO…Dude, he used to write speeches for GW Bushwacker. He writes for CNN….Sorry to burst your bubble, he’s simply another media hack. Calling oneself Conservative doesn’t actually make one conservative. Bush is a perfect example as are John McCain, John Boehner and Lindsay Graham…they claim to be conservatives, but there isn’t a single conservative bone between them.

            It’s obvious that you have no idea what a conservative is….so, I will overlook your indiscretion…this time.

            You keep believing yourself if it comforts you…I think I’ll pass….in favor of rational thought.

        • speedle24

          You are 100% wrong. The provision includes the phrase “the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms” is included separately from the phrase regarding a well regulated militia. If that were not the case the entire clause would be redundant. Further, there is no certainty as to the meaning of “MILITIA”. In any case, what is clear is the “STATES” are responsible for any regulation, not the federal government.

          • Jeff

            So, it’s there for no reason and you could just remove it? But that wouldn’t be nullifying the Amendment, would it?

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Firearms: the People’s Liberty Teeth:
          http://gunowners.org/fs9402.htm

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          So, Jeff would have us believe that the Founders insisted on the 2nd amendment to allow the States’ armies to arm themselves. Has anybody here ever heard of the State needing a right to arm their soldiers?
          Your argument is fallacious, Jeff, as usual.

          • Jeff

            Then who was to “well regulate” the militia? I believe that would be the States. At the time, we had no standing Army, so if a State was attacked by whomever (Indians, Canadians), it might have to defend itself. BTW: the definitions of “fallacious” do not include “DaveH disagrees.”

          • Average_Joe56

            Jeff,
            You really do need to address your reading comprehension issues.
            “Point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the “unorganized militia” according to the law, but that’s irrelevant, because the second statement:
            “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”.

    • Average_Joe56

      Ok, Alex, calm down, take a deep breath…and hold it…for about twenty minutes……

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      I guess we better arm ourselves for self-defense.

      The claim is that “mass shooting” should include any shooting of 4 or more whether the victims die or not.
      How does that compare to Alex’s hero — Obama? The shooters are lightweights:
      http://search.dronestre.am/

  • Jimmy the Greek

    He used a pump shotgun and two pistols he took from the cops !

    • Robert Peterson

      AR-15 pistols and an AR-15 shotgun.

    • Adolf Schmidt

      looks like the shooter took Biden’s advise and bought a shotgun! I wonder if he shot it of his porch like Biden suggested?

      • Jeff

        It’s hilarious, isn’t it, you Moron!

        • Adolf Schmidt

          You are such a idiot!!!!! For the low educated such as yourself, that was sarcasm!! Between Obama’s drone strikes,and Biden’s advice to shot a shotgun off your porch, they have put a pretty good amount of innocent people in a box or in jail! To follow these poor excuses for humans as blindly as you do, makes you the winner in a contest of stupidity!

          • Jeff

            Let me guess. You’re not a comedy writer. Or you write jokes for Ben Crystal. Same thing, I guess.

          • Adolf Schmidt

            No comedy there Jeff! You just not smart enough to know the difference!

          • Average_Joe56

            Jeff is one of our resident Trolls. It’s OK to feed him occasionally, just don’t make it a habit. Like most Trolls, if you feed them on a regular basis….they become dependent…. We need to force them to forage elsewhere occasionally.
            ;)

          • Adolf Schmidt

            I know what you mean! He seems to be the only one on here. I thought they traveled in packs!

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            Usually they are traveling in pack, but also some of them have multiple personalities (dave, Alex, smilee, mark, Ron r, etc.) Just for the information.

          • Average_Joe56

            Some days we get 3-4 other days we get just one….I guess it depends on their daily assignment from their handlers. The others are most likely mucking up and disrupting some of PLD’s other stories.

          • Barakolips

            Still got that job at Burger king? Oh wait, that’s right, you live off government handouts so you better go check the mailbox, and don’t forget mommy and daddys mail!

          • Jeff

            Let me correct you. It was a lame, idiotic attempt at sarcasm. Par for the course.

        • Adolf Schmidt

          Hey Jeff, It looks as if you were the only one that could not understand!

    • Jeff

      How many could he have killed had he actually had an AR-15? 20? 30? 100? And that’s before reloading!

      • Don 2

        How many firearms trained military personnel could have stopped this nutcase Democrat wacko early on, if they had been allowed to carry a sidearm, instead of waiting a full 30 minutes before the cops with guns got there?

        • Jeff

          I figured you’d tell us how Captain Binghamton would have stopped him before he killed anyone!

          • Don 2

            Too bad that you cannot come up with a valid counter argument?

          • Average_Joe56

            We figured that you would say something stupid… Thanks for not disappointing us.

        • Robert Messmer

          How many of the victims would still be alive if the CERT team had not been told to stand down? They were on hand, suited up, armed and ready to go 20 minutes before the “official” SWAT team got there. But apparently they were refused because of “jurisdictional’ issues.

      • Average_Joe56

        What if frog had wings? Would they still bump their arses when they land?
        For those of you lacking in intelligence and logic, “What if” is not a valid argument. What “is”….is. What “isn’t”…isn’t. You can hypothesize about what may have happened “IF”… but,the fact remains…it didn’t.
        How about you trying to live in the reality of what actually happened….. rather than frightening yourself even further with “what if’s”?

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        How many could he have killed if his victims were not disarmed and helpless?

      • Barakolips

        You don’t even know what caliber an AR 15 fires or how many rounds are in most clips so just shut your piehole and quit pulling theories out of thin air meathead!!

        • http://www.rt.com Alondra

          Of cause he does not know.
          He just posting talking points he receives each morning.

  • wavesofgrain

    This incident just underscores the lunacy of the left. The media will do everything it can to cover up this corrupt administration.

    As I found out in an article from a recent Personal Liberty mail, ProPublica, the News Source that Obama announced the WH was using for their sole News Source/Reporting, is funded by Soros….all the MainStream partners with it!!! When we have billionaire Coms who have destroyed economies by their NGO’s (and he and his NGO’s are banned in other countries), you can be sure the cancer has metastasized and is terminal. We will hear not hear any truth from this media…just cover-ups.

    Considering that the majority of these mass shooters erupted since this new admin took reign, they were all registered democrats and/or their families were uber-liberal. Although party info on the latest shooter has not been released, it is a bet he voted for Obm

  • Leo_Rochester-MI

    SAD
    That the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to most that we talk about here. Most people out there are afraid of guns, the evil corporations that pay their Starbucks coffee in morning, big oil that power their SUV behemoths and the all so powerful America… This is the crowd that hear about a shooting or IRS, or NSA and Lybia to freak out and turn themselves into the cocoon of ignorance.

    Good luck trying to explain the average Amerikan stupid the difference between a SA rifle (that may look bold to some) and a star treck phaser…

    This government scum in power knows that better than we do!

    • jaybird

      Good luck in explaining to the same people before Obummer was elected how bad he was for America and they still don’t believe what you tell them. Their brains must be wired a lot different than ours. They never learned what common sense is.

      They also do not know the difference between stupid, different or crazy. They probably think all the Muslim’s that are holding positions in the WH as moderates instead of them being connected to the Brotherhood. The list was/is published by the White House (on line) of those that attended the Ramadan feast. It was amazing.

      I guess when the Muslim finish taking over our country and start persecuting those that don’t believe as they do, they will stand around asking “how did this happen”?

      I am amazed at what ALex (comment below) had to say about the 2nd Amendment and our Constitution.

      My grandson is 28 (his father did not hunt) fishes, hunts and guts and cleans everything and is a patriot. His wife and sister cleaned 1st fish the other day (wife RN, sister in Radiology) Identifying the organs as they took them out. Their baby has a red, white and blue pacifier. He can keep thinking the younger generation is not drinking the tea. These college kids that are signing stupid petitions on TV to send care packages to the terrorist and get rid of the Constitution are brain dead and their parents are responsible. You don’t have a country and the freedom like we have/had without something in place to protect it. 1 proud grandma/ great-grandma’s opinion.

      • jaybird

        additional comment, just found out my grandson is having another patriot, hoping for a boy this time, I am sure the current patriot will learn how to take care of herself, god help the teacher that tries to get her to go to a mosque or put a Muslim outfit on her. I am going to order patriot books for children.

        • dan

          congrats….teach ‘em to read the Constitution and
          honor their word and I’m sure no one will lead them astray
          ( the best part of grandparenthood is finally having the time to do the importent stuff)

  • IBCAMN

    is this a Dewey moment again?(amongst a million others)

  • Bentrim

    I have yet to see a gun just up and start shooting or even killing. There has to be someone that pulls the trigger. We don’t ever talk about car control because a drunk or drug induced driver kills someone. Maybe we should have car control!!! We punish the driver NOT the car. The driver has been issued a license which says he has passed certain requirements of safely driving a car. As for the second amendment Leave it alone. We are loosing to many basic freedoms already. Do you really want every aspect of you life controlled?? Don’t need an ID to vote but need one to see a doctor, at the bank, and a business to cash a check. Maybe what we need is drug and video game control first ?? Video game?? How do we learn, by repeating actions. As they used to say “drumming it in your head” . After a while, between the drugs and video games reality disappears. These liberals need a good lesson on reality before this great country is over runs by their stupidity.

    • Kenneth Forman

      “Maybe we should have car control!!!”
      Maybe just ban the scary looking ones.

      • Bentrim

        Naw. Not the scary one just the imports.

        • NObama_Holder_Reid_Pelosi_2012

          Are you suggesting to buy American and support your Countries economy rather than foreign economies? You must be on of those terrible potential domestic terrorist tea partiers that are so dangerous to this Country. How dare you suggest to support your own Countries economy, that is just selfish and greedy in the eyes of the liberals.

  • alboy5

    Mental cases and guns do not mix well. Libtards of course cannot make the connection and blame their fantasy of m15s being used, so libtards use make believe facts.

    • Alan

      There is definitly a connection between the states closing mental hospitals and the increase in these random shootings.

    • Bill

      Alboy,
      Every one of these shooters was on Psychiatric drugs. Instead of looking at guns as the problem, making we should be banning Psychiatric drugs.
      Silly me, I forgot that Diane Feinstein is bought and paid for by the drug companies

    • Vis Fac

      Facts to a liberal are those that are pulled out of thin air and or
      provided by lame stream media to swathe their ineptness on all things rational. Liberal one dimensional idiot-ology dictates they make things up as they go so they can blame others for their failures.
      So whenever they have trouble defending and/or nothing to substantiate their positions they simply fall back on the Federal Board for Blaming Bush or citing lame stream media’s partial/fabricated truths and prevarications; then all their liberal inadequacies are soon considered ancient history becoming non issues and then quickly forgotten

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

  • dan

    SOMEBODY: please photo shop Barney holding an AR-15 so I can see the liberals wet their pants…..
    Bees still kill more Americans than terrorists …domestic or imported….
    or elected

  • Bentrim

    Maybe these gun hating folks should post their addresses to the public. Thieves would much rather steal from a home where they know the homeowner doesn’t own a gun. They fear an armed homeowner more than the police! Remember Our e lustrous lawmaker want armed protect while they take it away from us. Even pelosi carried for “protection”. It is time congress follows the same exact regulations they want us to. Have them ALL and the secret service disarmed then they can appreciate their “gun control” policies. Put them ALL on Obamacare, eliminate their perks, and allow them only ONE term with a least 30 years needed before they can receive ANY retirement. Voters need to wake up and make sure they ALL get only one term and vote in EVERY election!!

    • Vis Fac

      You forgot to mention the queen of hypocrisy herself Diane Feinstein who has a CCP. The “do as I say not as I do” crowd has spoken.

      “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will
      not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” – Adolf Hitler

      More liberal one dimensional tenet taken from a fascist.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

  • WFreeman

    Why so surprised that the media lied? Of course they lie and they pursue their own agenda- if you haven’t become aware of that yet, you are a slow learner.

  • Alan

    Even though their stats are pure BS, the low and no info voters will believe it, because it’s in a newspaper.

  • rbrooks

    >I understand the anti-Bill of Rights crowd is made up almost exclusively of liberals.<

    that makes most of you liberals. most americans support the many current restrictions to the 2nd amendment.

    the 2nd amendment does not contain any restrictions or exemptions.

    • Jeff

      Really? I guess the 1st clause was invented by Rachel Maddow.

      • rbrooks

        perhaps you, or any of the other gun control supporting idiots, could show any exemptions or exclusions in the 2nd amendment.

        too many morons have supported a variety of restrictions to the 2nd.

        they have supported the very precedents that will eventually restrict them as well.

        • Jeff

          I guess the words “well regulated militia” mean nothing to you. If you think you have an unencumbered right to any weapon you desire, I think you will eventually be disabused of that notion.

          • rbrooks

            well, when the framers wrote the 2nd amendment, many of the writers and many in the public, owned the very latest military weapons. it is obvious they included those, all, weapons. they did not grant any exclusions regarding the type of weapon. nor did they grant any exclusions based on criminal, civil or medical history.

            if you want exclusions, then you must change the amendment.

            once you do that, you will see the same results that support of current restrictions have caused.

            eventually, everyone and every type of weapon, will be included in the restrictions.

            a well regulated militia would allow the possession of military weapons. what we have now is a restricted overly regulated militia.

          • Jeff

            A well-regulated militia can be whatever the locale thinks is appropriate. The decisions may be very different in a confined city like San Francisco vs. the wide open spaces of Montana. In a city, it might make sense to keep the “militia” weapons locked in a central place. In a rural area, each militia member might keep his gun with him.
            The amendment itself dictates nothing. It’s all in the interpretation. Like the 4th Amendment says searches and seizures must be reasonable. It’s then up to the Courts to determine (a) what is reasonable and (b) what to do with unreasonably seized evidence.
            But under no interpretation of the 2nd amendment will individuals be allowed unfettered access to the most modern and lethal military weapons as some/many on this site claim. Even the Scalito Twins won’t go that far!

          • rbrooks

            what interpretation? you are trying to use interpretation to change the amendment. it is that continued use of ‘interpretation’ that is being used to strip away all of our rights.

            where does it say that any weapons are to be restricted?
            where does it state that selected individuals are to be restricted?
            where does it state that any entity had the right to interpret the 2nd?

            who determined that the courts have the authority to make judicial changes to the constitution or bill of rights.

            jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.

            that would address all of the current arguments about the constitution and the bill of rights.

            that is the only correct way to make the changes.

            it is all a moot point at this time. the patriot act made the constitution and the bill of rights obsolete and meaningless.

          • Jeff

            “who determined that the courts have the authority to make judicial changes to the constitution or bill of rights”
            Then who is to determine what an amendment means in a given situation? You? It’s always been the Courts. There is not a single amendment in the Bill of Rights that is either self executing or easy to interpret in a given situation. If you think differently, you’re simply wrong. Over the years there have been thousands of cases decided concerning the limits and contours of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Those decisions become, in effect, part and parcel of the amendments themselves.

          • rbrooks

            simply because the courts made a decision, does equate to it being correct or constitutional.

            just because they made a ruling you favor, does equate to it being correct or constitutional.
            actually the amendments are easily executed and easily read.

            it has always been a back door approach to making selective changes to the bill of rights.

            they now make selective changes for select individuals.

            which is still a moot point.

            you are arguing theory.

            the patriot act has changed all of that.

  • tns

    Fun fact: according to the pew research center MSNBC is by far the worst news network with around 85% of stories being opinion based.
    For comparison FOX news is around 55% opinion and CNN is about 47% opinion.

  • Jeff

    I was not aware the Daily News, the paper Archie Bunker “read,” is now part of the “liberal media.”

    • Average_Joe56

      Jeff, it has become abundantly clear to most of us that you aren’t “aware” of anything. Please, continue investigating your navel.

      • http://www.rt.com Alondra

        Why investigate? They anyway do not use the FACTS, just talking points, mantras and labels.

        • Average_Joe56

          Well, I figure that’s the only thing that Jeff has ever actually investigated in his entire life. I was hoping to keep him occupied and away from the boards. ( it should keep him busy for weeks at a time).
          ;)

          • Jeff

            Keep hoping. Maybe Santa will bring you a brain for Christmas.

          • Average_Joe56

            I suppose that you still believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Unicorns and honest politicians too……
            Who would have thought?….Oh…never mind….. all of us…..

    • ted

      Dont care what type of media you call it, that paper has turned into a complete rag. The pussy Lupica sucked at sports 30 years ago and now they let him write op-eds.

  • Average_Joe56

    Navy Yard: Swat team ‘stood down’ at mass shooting scene.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/24153252

    One of the first teams of heavily armed police to respond to Monday’s shooting
    in Washington DC was ordered to stand down by superiors.

  • Jeff
  • Robbie

    Does it matter what the name of the gun is? Aren’t those dead victims just as dead?

  • Don 2

    Guns Don’t Kill – Gun Free Zones Do
    http://eaglerising.com/1842/guns-dont-kill-gun-free-zones/

  • mnkysnkle

    Well said and very humorous Ben. The sad thing is,>>It’s not funny!! :( :)