Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
200,000? Seriously? I had more people than that in my high school.Bless the kids! I believe the NRA has finally met its match.
And that’s with every radical left-wing organization pumping millions into it. Sorry Lak - 200,000 radicals aren’t going to take down a hundred million gun owners.An objective estimate of the crowd size determined that there were actually a little over 200,000 people.
Well the first question is: what is the most constitutional solution?What is the most cost effective solution?
200,000? Seriously? I had more people than that in my high school.Bless the kids! I believe the NRA has finally met its match.
And that’s with every radical left-wing organization pumping millions into it. Sorry Lak - 200,000 radicals aren’t going to take down a hundred million gun owners.An objective estimate of the crowd size determined that there were actually a little over 200,000 people.
Fact check: How many people ACTUALLY showed up to march in DC?
How precious...you posted a bunch of pictures of the 200,000 person fascist rally. Looks a lot like my graduating class.200,000? Seriously? I had more people than that in my high school.Bless the kids! I believe the NRA has finally met its match.
And that’s with every radical left-wing organization pumping millions into it. Sorry Lak - 200,000 radicals aren’t going to take down a hundred million gun owners.An objective estimate of the crowd size determined that there were actually a little over 200,000 people.
Fact check: How many people ACTUALLY showed up to march in DC?
200,000? Glenn Beck? That's fucking hilarious!
View attachment 184928
View attachment 184929
Muster the militia until crime drops.Well the first question is: what is the most constitutional solution?What is the most cost effective solution?
Then the next question becomes: what is the most effective solution?
It’s not until the third question that you ask: what is the most cost effective?
Only one solution properly meets the criteria of all three questions: firearms.
As we have explained to you over and over, the militia has no authority over domestic legal issues. You continue to take stupid to unprecedented levels.Muster the militia until crime drops.
Just more right wing fantasy? I make a motion all left wing policy provide for the contingency of a lack of a right wing, in support.As we have explained to you over and over, the militia has no authority over domestic legal issues. You continue to take stupid to unprecedented levels.Muster the militia until crime drops.
Now...for the hundredth time....Shhh! The adults are talking. We can’t keep getting interrupted by your childish comments and antics.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Maybe if all those gun nuts turn their AR 15's in for muskets it would make more sense?
The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "A well regulated militia." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.
Maybe if all those gun nuts turn their AR 15's in for muskets it would make more sense?
The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "A well regulated militia." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.
It is one sentence and reading the sentence in it’s entirety, it becomes painfully obvious that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "A well regulated militia." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.
Fed-Up Parkland Students Featured On Time Magazine Cover
Congress Banned Assault Weapons Once Before. We Can Do It Again.
It is easy to get discouraged, but standing up to the National Rifle Association isn’t an impossible feat.
Bless the kids! I believe the NRA has finally met its match.
The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "A well regulated militia." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.
A Army of Citizens are call a Militia this can be a group of people defending the USA with thier own weapons and ammo. This is most of the time done on the spur of a moment during a time of attack and does not refer to the US army of National Guard. I was reading some of the WWII lit the other night and the two things that Hitler feared was the Mafia and Americans with guns. Just something to think about.By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
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.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
I marvel at the left’s shameless ability to be wrong 24x7 but to continue with the same idiotic narrative.Pulse wasn’t the killer’s intended target. It was Disney. At 10 pm, the killer arrived at the Disney World shopping and entertainment area. He used a stroller to conceal his weapon. Security camera footage shows him passing multiple police and security officers and even watching their movements. It apparently made him rethink his choice.
Good guys with guns stopped a terror attack on Disney that night, and they didn’t even know they were doing it. Imagine if more people open-carried. How many more attacks would that stop before they even got started?
It’s the exact same thing with muslims. They are tormenting citizens all over Europe (intimidating them, threatening them, etc.). But they don’t try that shit here at all. They know Americans carry firearms and will use them every time if necessary.I was reading some of the WWII lit the other night and the two things that Hitler feared was the Mafia and Americans with guns. Just something to think about.
