[2ndDivisionVet]

I'm glad the lines are being drawn on the real issues, aren't you? This election is not about the Scooby van, burritos or The Simpsons.

[vpintheak]

What part of “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” do these idiots not understand?
I know “infringe” is a tought word for idiots to udnerstand, but really, they should look it up, just once.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Being a very smart man, I am sure that Cruz has already thought of this response to what a liberal LSM hack thinks would be a gotcha question.

[faithhopecharity]

the right to keep and bear arms was well understood by our Founders, based on the experience of King George trying to confiscate individuals’ guns, muskets, rifles...

And it is a settled matter in the law.

the NYT can smoke all the Weed it wishes, its editorials are usually not worth a damn anyway in the Real World (without hallucinogenic drugs).

Indeed, for all its staff talent, the NYT has managed to auto-destruct its newspaper (excepting only perhaps for some of its theatre and other local NYC cultural coverage .. and its crossword puzzles).

My dog wouldn’t stoop to Krap on the NYT “news” section.

[Glad2bnuts]

We give arms to ISIS, Libya and Mexico. Rockets, machine guns and grenade launchers. For the average American according to the NY Times weapons are for sports and must be firmly controlled. I wish a top tier Republican candidate would ask what is more dangerous, guns in the hands of Americans, or nuclear weapons for Iran? Do a background check of every leader in Iran, see what comes up.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Mark Hemingway = MORON
.

[smokingfrog]

[DiogenesLamp]

If you say “New York Times” the “dumb” part is implicit.

[FunkyZero]

what always just bewilders me is the average apologists arguments against 2A and their obvious lack of knowledge on the subject. We can take the simple lines in the constitution and watch them attempt to interpret it as they see fit... but all the while, if they would simply read the CONTEXT in which such entries into the Constitution were written, they would see the very obvious and plain reason WHY they were put in there and what they meant by those condensed words.

Federalist Papers, #46 - Patrick Henry
Constitution (3 Elliot's Debates 384-7)
Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

P386
"The great object is, that every man be armed. "

Page 425
Mr. GEORGE MASON.
"Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia , if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. "

P14, James Madison
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
" Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession... "

this could go on and on and on. There were obvious arguments of opposition as well, but the point is, it was ratified, and more importantly, the papers tell us why... not the NYT, not Moms against Guns, not Bloomberg, Not Haggardly senators from California. quite frankly, they don't even have any business commenting on someone elses natural rights.