# data[].attributes.body
This quiz stats that I am Republican ,and I feel that this is true about myself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you land on the political spectrum, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by Pew Research Center in collaboration with the PBS NewsHour.

Questions gauge political values and an individual's stance on policies and range from government spending to gay marriage. Your score shows your likelihood of being Republican or Democrat and is based on a Pew March 2016 political survey.

Nationally, the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is getting closer; an average of polls show Clinton's post-convention bounce is over. Lisa Desjardins examines both candidates' polling strengths and Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post's Dan Balz join Judy Woodruff for a breakdown of the electorate and how the candidates can drive home their messages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where do you fit? The 2016 Political Party Quiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you fit in, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by the Pew Research Center and the PBS NewsHour.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme court case about the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme court case about the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
A bill that

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a California law restricting concealed carry permits.

After postponing the order multiple times, the nation's highest court rejected a review of Peruta v. California. In the case, gun rights activists argued that a "good cause" requirement on concealed carry permits is too restrictive.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."
What is this case about?
At issue in this case is concealed carry and whether a county can define "good cause" to carry a weapon outside of one's home as strictly as some California counties - specifically San Diego - do.

Edward Peruta and other gun owners reportedly attempted to obtain concealed carry permits in San Diego County, Calif. However, the sheriff's department - which handles permit requests - requires a specific "good cause" to obtain the permits, Fox News previously reported.

That "good cause" must be more specific than just a general concern for wellbeing; a person must list a precise fear, such as domestic violence or carrying a large amount of money.
What were other rulings?
A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in 2014 that the policy stood in violation of the right to self-defense.

However, 11 judges in the same circuit later ruled 7-4 in a new hearing that the restrictions were permissible.
What's next for this case?
The nation's highest court hasn't always been so willing to take up Second Amendment cases, Law Newz reported earlier this month. And this particular case has been rescheduled multiple times.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

With the Supreme Court declining to review the case, the California law will remain in place.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US Supreme Court declines to take up 2nd Amendment case: A look at the California law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a California law restricting concealed carry permits. After postponing the order multiple times, the nation's highest court rejected a review of Peruta v. California. In the case, gun rights activists argued that a "good cause" requirement on concealed carry permits is too restrictive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Famous People that Support Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Famous People that Support Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Here is a small list of Famous singers, movie stars, and Football players that support the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's been a major disconnect in recent years between leftist Hollywood elites and regular, everyday Americans who often hold conservative beliefs.

Following the recent Las Vegas shooting that left 59 dead and hundreds more injured, many celebrities used their public platforms to call for gun control or an outright repeal of the Second Amendment. While that may be the way the majority of celebrities think - there's a small percent who stand up to defend gun owners.

Here is a look at some celebs who are supporters of the Second Amendment.

1.) Kaya Jones. The former Pussycat Doll has regained notoriety this year for being a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump. The Las Vegas native was on stage during Jason Aldean's performance in Las Vegas just 15 minutes prior to the attack by Stephen Paddock. The day after the massacre, Jones made an appearance on "Fox and Friends" and reiterated that she believes in the Second Amendment and that guns were not the problem - it was Paddock.

"What it makes me do is just want to - you know, carry conceal. So our Second Amendment right is enforced in my mind for me. This is not going to stop me living my life or ... being a proud American, a proud performer. No way," she said.

2.) Miranda Lambert. The Texas-born singer-songwriter generally shies away from political talk so that she does not alienate her audience. Regardless, five years ago she revealed in a Self Magazine article that she often carries a firearm in public instead of opting for a bodyguard.

"I carry a weapon. I got a death threat a few years ago and was really scared. But I don't want bodyguards. I am my own security," she said.
Related: Why Jimmy Kimmel, Other Celebs, Are Wrong About Guns
3.) Charles Barkley. Following the murder-suicide of former NFL player Jovan Belcher, in which he killed his girlfriend, Barkley, the basketball analyst and former NBA star, stood behind the Second Amendment - and strongly against domestic violence.

"I don't get into the gun stuff. Some guys have guns who go hunting. Where do we stop [the gun control] ... ? I'm not a hunter, but we can't say people can't have guns ... Let's not make this thing about guns. Let's make this about mistreating women. That's unacceptable," Barkley said.
Related: Harvey Weinstein's Hypocritical Fight with the NRA
4.) Tim Allen. Allen didn't just play conservatives on TV - he is one in real life. The actor best known for his roles as Tim "The Toolman" Taylor on "Home Improvement" and as the voice of Buzz Lightyear in the "Toy Story" films came to the defense of gun ownership in 2015, arguing that mental illness is the cause of mass shootings, not guns.

As Allen told Entertainment Weekly:

When we were kids, my dad put us through a YMCA class. We know how to load 'em, clean 'em, put 'em away, store 'em, and never point them at people. That's just the rule: You don't get mad and go get a gun. We just learned about them. And then put them away, and none of us ever used them again. The truth of it is, AK-47s look dangerous, so they want those outlawed, but a Winchester .30-30 is actually, in my mind, far more dangerous. Anyway, we got asked this yesterday: "How do you guys feel about gun violence?" This guy, Mike Baxter, is a guy who works in a store that sells guns, so he has to have an attitude about them. But it's really mental illness: Most of these big, horrendous events were done by somebody who's mentally ill.

5.) Stacey Dash. The co-star of the movie "Clueless" has been dubbed a "black white supremacist" by leftists who are upset she does not conform to the bounds of identity politics. Dash said owning a gun saved her from an abusive relationship. When she pulled a gun on a man who beat her on a consistent basis, the man never returned - so she feels the Second Amendment saved her life.

"My gun and my Second Amendment right saved my life and the life of my son. I've had firsthand experience that I know carrying a gun can save your life," Dash told WPHT-AM in an interview. She said she was a "lifetime NRA member" and went on to tell her harrowing story:

I got into an abusive relationship, a man that would beat me up every day for five years. I got away from that man and then got into another relationship with another man that was also not a good man. He was a bad man - cut, too. My son is three years old. We're being stalked by this man; we're having to move - I can't tell you how many times because this man would find us every place we went. Finally, I bought a gun, and thank God, because he found us. He kicked the door in off the hinges. He beat me up. My son was asleep upstairs. I ran upstairs, I got my gun, I loaded it and I came down the stairs shooting and he was coming up the stairs. I missed him, but he went away and he never came back.

6.) Amber Heard. The actress, featured in "Pineapple Express" and many other films, may be socially liberal - but she has expressed her love for guns in the past. In an interview with The Daily Mail, she said her .357 Magnum is her "baby" and that she sees owning a gun as an important way to protect herself.
Related: Would You Shell Out Money to See This Fight?
7.) Kurt Russell. "The Hateful Eight" and "Escape from New York" actor has proclaimed many times in the past that he is a staunch libertarian, so it makes sense he supports the Second Amendment. That said, he publicly came to the defense of the right to bear arms two years ago. He even explained why the law exists in the first place.

"I think there's a very strong reason the Founding Fathers had for our Second Amendment," Russell said on "The View" in 2015. He also said the idea that gun control laws would prevent gun violence was "absolutely insane."

"[The reasoning behind the Second Amendment] is that no government ever hasn't had to fight its own people, and its own people [haven't] had to fight [their] own government," Russell added. "We had our Civil War. If that Second Amendment hadn't been there, those people wouldn't have had the opportunity to do what they considered defending their life, their way, their style of living."

8.) Chuck Norris. The star of "Walker, Texas Ranger," is an evangelical Christian and an outspoken Republican, so he believes in everything that entails. Norris told Glenn Beck in 2009 on Fox News that he owns many guns - and that he sees owning guns as the best way for citizens to protect themselves against a potentially tyrannical government.

9.) Ted Nugent. He might be the most famous NRA supporter in the world. The former rock star is even on its board. Nugent is consistently in the public eye for defending the Second Amendment and speaking against politicians who oppose it.

10.) Bruce Willis. While promoting 2013's "A Good Day to Die Hard" - the actor's fifth outing as his famous John McClane character - Willis took time to defend both the First and Second Amendments. He dismissed the idea that movies inspire violence and that proposed gun laws would stop such violence.

"I think you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone," he told the Associated Press. ''If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?"
(photo credit, homepage image: Miranda Lambert at the Lorain County Fair, CC BY-SA 2.0, by Rona Proudfoot / Kurt Russell, CC BY-SA 2.0, by Gage Skidmore; photo credit, article images: Tim Allen during a surprise set..., CC BY-SA 4.0, by Mark Ridley / Stacey Dash, CC BY-SA 2.0, by Gage Skidmore)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Celebrities Who Support the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's been a major disconnect in recent years between leftist Hollywood elites and regular, everyday Americans who often hold conservative beliefs. Following the recent Las Vegas shooting that left 59 dead and hundreds more injured, many celebrities used their public platforms to call for gun control or an outright repeal of the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Donald Trump was reported making a death threat over the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Slammed Over Second Amendment Comments About Clinton | NBC Nightly News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Trump adviser says it is "totally ridiculous" to suggest that Donald Trump was making an assassination joke about Hillary Clinton at his rally, but many took his comments as just that. " Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC " Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews NBC News is a leading source of global news and information.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a organization that is no in favor of the Second Amendment. The arguments on it are all based upon opinion and no facts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme court case that connects to the Second  Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme court case that connects to the Second  Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Fox News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.
WHY JUSTICE GORSUCH WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE (AND BIG) IMPACT ON THE SUPREME COURT
Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn't get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff's Department handles permit requests and requires "good cause" to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

Related Image

Expand / Collapse

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of "good cause," but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.
CALIFORNIA CONCEALED WEAPON LAW TOSSED BY FED APPEALS COURT
Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

"I suspect they're going to grant it," said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Eastman told Fox News, "it's percolating all across the country."

He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month. Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and "the lower courts are split on the issue."

It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy. He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a "sense that he's sympathetic to a broader view" of the Second Amendment.

The case may turn on how the court frames the issue. To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits.

"The Second Amendment isn't an absolute right," Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, "there's never been a right to have concealed weapons."

But Eugene Volokh believes there's a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is "tantamount to banning" the right to bear arms "except for a few favored people."

Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, "no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision."

Steve Kurtz is a producer for the Fox News Channel, and author of "Steve's America (the perfect gift for people named Steve)".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances? Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law which prohibited the possession of handguns. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Court meticulously detailed the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention and proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms. The Court carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in dicta stated that firearm regulations would not implicate the Second Amendment if that weaponry cannot be used for law-abiding purposes. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

In 2010, the Court further strengthened Second Amendment protections in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856. The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionality of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. The Court lacked a majority on which specific clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

Several questions still remain unanswered, however, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment. Generally, in constitutional law, courts subject statutes and ordinances to three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:

Circuit Court opinions following Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold the following:

Regulations prohibiting weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant's conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property).

Regulations prohibiting possession of a handgun as a juvenile delinquent. , 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment).

Regulations requiring a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment).

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced its Heller ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016). The Court struck down a Massachusetts statute which prohibited the possession or use of "stun guns" by finding that "stun guns" are protected under the Second Amendment. While ruling largely on the reasoning of Heller, the opinion was per curiam and therefore did not significantly add to Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In 2022, the Supreme Court further expanded upon the precedent set by Heller in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court struck down a New York law requiring parties interested in purchasing a handgun for the use of self-defense outside of the home to obtain a license because the law issued licenses on a "may-issue" rather than a "shall issue" basis. This "may issue" licensing method allowed state authorities to deny interested parties public use licenses for firearms if the interested party was unable to show "proper cause" as to why they have a heightened need for self-protection over the general population.

Furthermore, the Court disavowed the use of "means-end tests" many jurisdictions had adopted for the purposes of interpreting the Second Amendment, instead ruling that a Second Amendment analysis is limited to evaluating the historical nature of the right and whether a given use of a firearm or other weapon is deeply rooted in the history of the United States. Post- Bruen, courts can no longer use a standard scrutiny analysis like the one seen in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester to determine if a gun regulation is constitutional. Instead, a government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must "affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

In a concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh joined by Justice Roberts emphasizes that Bruen is not intended to invalidate "shall-issue" licensing structures or other restrictions on firearm ownership including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health evaluations, mandatory training requirements, and potential other requirements. Additionally, this concurrence draws a line between objective gun control measures, where an individual must pass a set of predetermined requirements, which are constitutional, and subjective gun control measures, such as licensing at a state official's discretion, which are not.

It remains to be seen how the ruling in Bruen and the sentiments espoused in this concurrence will influence cases going forward.

See also: C onstitutional Amendment.

[Last updated in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

# data[].attributes.headline
Youtube video explaining the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Youtube video explaining the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Youtube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen!

# data[].attributes.headline
News article that discusses an issue regarding the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
News article that discusses an issue regarding the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following another well-worn trail, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House spokeswoman, said it was just not the right time to talk about gun laws. (In the same way, I suppose, that football games are not the right time to talk about institutionalized racism.)

The rest of the pattern involves the National Rifle Association - or rather its minions, because the gun lobby usually goes silent for a little while after a mass murder - warning that "they" want to take "your" guns.

People on the other side - the one I am on - wave their hands and say: "No, no, no. We just want to limit their power or the ease of purchase."

When The Times ran a front-page editorial on guns after the San Bernardino massacre in 2015, we suggested that Americans need to think about giving up the right to own firearms designed only to kill people.

We were assailed by the gun-rights crowd, of course, which said we wanted to disarm all law-abiding Americans. One right-wing columnist actually shot up a paper copy of the editorial and posted the results online.

But we also got complaints from advocates for gun control, who said that wasn't their particular agenda, or that it was too aggressive, or that it wasn't the right time.

It was past time then, and still is. There are almost as many firearms in private hands in America as there are people in the country - more than 300 million.

Stopping the reckless spread of firearms is important, but the culture of gunplay is just far too deeply embedded in our society. And I'm not just talking about open-carry or concealed-carry laws, or "stand your ground" laws.

News accounts of the Las Vegas nightmare are using various locutions to describe the scope of the murders. The Times calls it one of the deadliest in history. The Washington Post calls it the deadliest in modern times.

Why? Because the Las Vegas slaughter does not even come close to being the deadliest. In the 19th and early 20th century, white Americans conducted mass murders of Native Americans regularly - sometimes hundreds at a time. They did this in the uniform of the U.S. Army, and in civilian clothes, but either way it was genocidal terror.

Times writers are also being admonished not to call the guns used by the Las Vegas killer "automatic weapons" because technically they appear to have been semiautomatic weapons modified for rapid, continuous fire.

One argument is that it somehow undermines the credibility of gun-control advocates to get the lingo wrong. Let's be clear: We don't have credibility with the other side of the argument, regardless of the precision of our words, and the linguistic niceties blur the main issue.

The Second Amendment gives individuals a right to own firearms, the Supreme Court has decided, but not carte blanche to own any number or kind of firearm, regardless of its purpose, design or lethality.

There is no good reason for a civilian to own rifles like the ones used by the Las Vegas killer and even less to own many of them. We need to steadily remove from private hands those kinds of guns, and ammunition designed to kill and maim more effectively or to pierce armor. Then we need to find more ways to reduce the number of weapons we own.

President Trump said today that "we will be talking about gun laws as time goes by."

I doubt it, especially that Trump will make it happen, and I fear that in any event we won't grapple with the real problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
las vegas  nev  shooting (october  2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following another well-worn trail, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House spokeswoman, said it was just not the right time to talk about gun laws. (In the same way, I suppose, that football games are not the right time to talk about institutionalized racism.)

# data[].attributes.headline
Politician that supports the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Politician that supports the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Rand Paul

# data[].attributes.body
I really find this cartoon funny, but as it's true.