take the clicker. see this right here . y okay, i have no idea how to do it here . just making this up as we go along then you hit record and then ask you a question. all right. one time only or que every epis. all right. every episode of the angry man o go oh god. okay, yeah. . i hear your producers laughing in the background all laughing because it s easy. they re laughing at youy and e because we re hilarious.me all right. we love your show. we love you. we ll see you tomorrow. all right. i m laura ingraham. this is ingraham angle from washington tonight . writes for all that s the focus of tonight s angle now it wasn t until about 1992 when i began my clerkship for justice clarence thomas for thai really began to pay attention to how the media writes about the supreme court s. so i m talking about the new york times and the washingtonew post y time magazine, newsweek, et cetera. television reporters 90% of them believe that the court rulings were radical and outside the
and listed the well known mass shootingsde in america like you ve all day buffalo, orlando ,newton, dayton and of courselo talked about all the horrors of that . well, alito justice hth alito, who is in the majority wrote separately in a concurrence he slapped back atg justice breyer saying, you know, why does the dissent think it s relevant to recountth the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? doesave the dissent think that laws like new york s prevent or deter such atrocities? well, the person bent on carrying out a mass shootingg be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home and happens to just then account foror the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in buffalo. the new york law at issue in this case obviously did not s stop that perpetrator. i don t know. that s a heck of a retirement sendoff for breyer, isn t it? now another obvious reason the court got it righton reactions from some of the most
now that s where we ve come. this is sheer lunacy. it s anti constitutional. it s anti-american. so in the end this is not a radical decision. it s not a crazy decision. it s a long overdue decision. and contrary to all the catter alling out therehe on the left, the ruling doesn t even meannla that states have no power toun regulate guns. it just can ts prohibit. lawts abiding residents from carryingg a gun for self-defenseca as justice alito noted. that s all we decide are holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. nor does it decide anythingd about the kinds of o weaponsha that people may possess nor have wedi disturbed anything that we said in heller or mcdonald versus chicago s about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns. get it? but the modern american left,e