# At The Demonstartion Against The NRA. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805 "2018-04-20T18:27:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/61 "2018-04-21T14:07:52Z")
Calgary has 1.2 million people in it. There were 14 firearm deaths last year; half the homicides. I have no idea how far away the police are when seconds count because I don’t live my life thinking I’m in constant danger. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/62 "2018-04-21T14:17:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, a pressure cooker loaded with shrapnel is even MORE effective at that. Then why aren’t they used more frequently? Sure, a well-made bomb could be more effective, but the average person isn’t skilled at making them – which is why they use guns instead. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/63 "2018-04-21T14:41:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Let’s see what else the SCOTUS said: > > So we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791. I’m ok with that. Are there any other parts of the constitution that you’d like to interpret using a similar, strict originalist theory, or is it just the 2nd amendment that gets that treatment? Free press? That certainly doesn’t include the internet or even typewriters. But of course one need only read the very next sentence in your cite to realize that SCOTUS was not making that kind of originalist argument: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” So, if you’d like argue that SCOTUS has sanctioned banning “dangerous and unusual weapons”, fine. They did not, however, state that you can ban any weapons not available in 1791. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/64 "2018-04-21T15:03:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Are there any other parts of the constitution that you’d like to interpret using a similar, strict originalist theory, or is it just the 2nd amendment that gets that treatment? Free press? That certainly doesn’t include the internet or even typewriters. > > But of course one need only read the very next sentence in your cite to realize that SCOTUS was not making that kind of originalist argument: > > So, if you’d like argue that SCOTUS has sanctioned banning “dangerous and unusual weapons”, fine. They did not, however, state that you can ban any weapons not available in 1791. Scalia magicked away the militia right out of the second amendment like it isn’t even there so I think pretty much any interpretation is possible. The 2nd amendment says nothing about “guns”. It says “arms”. “Arms” by definition includes any weapon you can think of yet clearly we are not allowed to posses any weapon you can think of. Far from it. In fact I’d wager you are banned from legally owning more types of weapons than weapon types you are allowed to possess as a regular citizen. The government is neck deep in restricting your 2nd amendment rights as it stands today. So the SCOTUS is already in the business of saying what is and is not ok to possess when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Thing is when the FFs wrote that amendment you could, in fact, legally possess any weapon in existence at that time and they were clearly ok with that. So it is not a reach to say that what the FFs intended was to allow the populace possession of any weapon in 1791 and not 2018 and the SCOTUS agrees since they are clearly ok with banning lots of kinds of weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/65 "2018-04-21T15:37:50Z")
Your interpretation is rejected in Caetano. Continuing to advance it would be like saying separate but equal is A-OK. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/66 "2018-04-21T15:40:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your interpretation is rejected in Caetano. Continuing to advance it would be like saying separate but equal is A-OK. So you can possess, today, any weapon you want as a private citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/67 "2018-04-21T16:02:40Z")
The “Supreme Court is the Word of God” approach is vastly simplistic. The Heller decision was a 5-4 decision undertaken by a profoundly politicized Supreme Court, including members who were appointed by folks whose campaigns were hugely supported by the gun manufacturer’s lobby. So, yes: the current interpretation of the second amendment belittles and dismisses the actual text of the amendment. But that’s not the most reasonable interpretation. It’s the interpretation that resulted from a decades-long campaign of misinformation and political manipulation–and even then, a single changed vote would have (correctly) torpedoed that interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/68 "2018-04-21T16:13:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your interpretation is rejected in Caetano. Continuing to advance it would be like saying separate but equal is A-OK. Are you also like a racist if you think abortion is unconstitutional or is Caetano the only case where you are like a racist if you disagree with the Supreme court? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/69 "2018-04-21T16:18:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Scalia magicked away the militia right out of the second amendment like it isn’t even there so I think pretty much any interpretation is possible. Well, yeah. The SCOTUS is able to interpret things pretty much any way they like. I’m just always surprised when folks who clearly don’t advocate strict, originalist theory suddenly embrace it only for certain, selected parts of the constitution. Shall we return to the FF’s definition of “establishment of religion” and “Congress”? Some states had established religions for quite some time after the ratification of the Constitution. IOW: be careful what you wish for. > [@](#): > > The 2nd amendment says nothing about “guns”. It says “arms”. “Arms” by definition includes any weapon you can think of yet clearly we are not allowed to posses any weapon you can think of. Far from it. In fact I’d wager you are banned from legally owning more types of weapons than weapon types you are allowed to possess as a regular citizen. The government is neck deep in restricting your 2nd amendment rights as it stands today. > > So the SCOTUS is already in the business of saying what is and is not ok to possess when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Thing is when the FFs wrote that amendment you could, in fact, legally possess any weapon in existence at that time and they were clearly ok with that. > > So it is not a reach to say that what the FFs intended was to allow the populace possession of any weapon in 1791 and not 2018 and the SCOTUS agrees since they are clearly ok with banning lots of kinds of weapons. That last sentence is demonstrably untrue as your own cite indicates. I’m surprised you are still clutching it, as if it were some persuasive argument. It isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/70 "2018-04-21T16:31:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, yeah. The SCOTUS is able to interpret things pretty much any way they like. I’m just always surprised when folks who clearly don’t advocate strict, originalist theory suddenly embrace it only for certain, selected parts of the constitution. This is a silly thing to be surprised by. Plenty of people, such as myself, consider the originalist approach to be an inadequate way to run the nation. However, when someone who is usually originalist and how preaches the sanctity of originalism suddenly abandons it as soon as it conflicts with gun lobby propaganda, you bet I’m gonna be a bit irked. The meta-argument of people like me who dispute Heller is this: Look, originalism is crap [for reasons–this is a meta-argument remember]. And gun control should be constitutional [for reasons]. But even if you go to originalism, WHICH YOU ALWAYS DO AND WHICH YOU KEEP SCOLDING ME FOR NOT GOING WITH, gun control should be constitutional [for originalist reasons]. So now, after all the scolding you’ve given me, you’re abandoning originalism, just so you can shit on gun control? Gah! You’re looking at that final bracket and implying that I’m a hypocrite, when that’s precisely the opposite of what’s really going on. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/71 "2018-04-21T16:34:57Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Then why aren’t they used more frequently? Sure, a well-made bomb could be more effective, but the average person isn’t skilled at making them – which is why they use guns instead. There is also the fact that if you are found to be using, transporting, or making a bomb, you are subject to arrest. Bit of a deterrent there. Many points in which your plans may be foiled by law enforcement before you are able to act. With a gun, you don’t need to worry about any sort of deterrent, as law enforcement can’t do anything to you until you actually start using your gun in a threatening way or open fire on a crowd. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/72 "2018-04-21T16:50:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, yeah. The SCOTUS is able to interpret things pretty much any way they like. I’m just always surprised when folks who clearly don’t advocate strict, originalist theory suddenly embrace it only for certain, selected parts of the constitution. Shall we return to the FF’s definition of “establishment of religion” and “Congress”? Some states had established religions for quite some time after the ratification of the Constitution. IOW: be careful what you wish for. I’m not embracing originalist theory. I am trying to show it for the intellectually bankrupt theory that it is. I’m gratified to see that it worked. Scalia deemed himself an originalist and 2nd amendment supporters tightly cling to an originalist reading. “Just look at what is says,” they shout! “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed!” Ok then. Square that with reality today. You can’t. The government restricts your right to keep and bear arms far more than they allow it. So we have established you can, in fact, make the 2nd amendment restrict weapon ownership anyway you please. Scalia’s opinion in Heller is smoke, mirrors and a pile of pseudo intellectual bullshit he wrote to come to a pre-determined position he personally liked. Nothing more. It would be trivial for a future SCOTUS to say you get to own any weapon that existed in 1791 and nothing else. It’d be more consistent and logical than Scalila’s Heller opinion. > [@](#): > > That last sentence is demonstrably untrue as your own cite indicates. I’m surprised you are still clutching it, as if it were some persuasive argument. It isn’t. Ok. We cannot know if the FFs would allow ownership of any weapon if they could have seen into the future. We do know they allowed ownership of any weapon in 1791. So either the SCOTUS is full of shit interpreting the 2nd amendment in a way that allows them to restrict certain weapons or they are right that the constitution doesn’t really say Joe Citizen can own a nuclear bomb. Which is it in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/73 "2018-04-21T16:58:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It would be trivial for a future SCOTUS to say you get to own any weapon that existed in 1791 and nothing else. It’d be more consistent and logical than Scalila’s Heller opinion. Or, that you can have and bear arms as part of an organized militia. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/74 "2018-04-21T17:22:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Can you perhaps come up with five times that an AR-15 was needed by a civilian as opposed to any other weapon? Pretty much, with the thousands of gun models out there, there is NO time when you can point to any one gun and proclaim you needed THAT gun as opposed to another. You can say the same thing about say a S&W .38 revolver, or a 30/30 Lever action rifle or just about any weapon. The same argument could be used to ban all fast cars. However, it isn’t AR 15’s, it is all military looking semi-auto rifles people are looking to ban. And they are useful for home defense\* and for varmint hunting. And, for home defense, it’s is what YOU are most comfortable using and familiar with. If it is a AR 15, then that’s the right and proper weapon. - altho no doubt one could dissect each instance and say “You know, a pump shotgun would have been just as good…” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/75 "2018-04-21T17:26:21Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Or, say, a revolver that holds six shots and can’t be used to rapidly commit mass murder? It is to laff. With speedloaders, you can fire a revolver just about as fast as a semi-auto. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/76 "2018-04-21T17:29:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Let’s see what else the SCOTUS said: > > So we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791. I’m ok with that. And we can ban all reading material and news and opposition info unless printed on a Press available before 1791. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/77 "2018-04-21T17:33:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It is to laff. With speedloaders, you can fire a revolver just about as fast as a semi-auto. Really? Las Vegas shooter got off [about 90 shots in 10seconds.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html) Videotape yourself doing that with a revolver and I’ll buy you a really good bottle of whiskey (or whatever your poison is). Since you said “about as fast” I’ll accept 75 rounds or more in 10 seconds. (This does not mean you can shoot six bullets almost as fast…it means you can put 75+ rounds down range in 10 seconds or less with a revolver.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/78 "2018-04-21T17:38:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Really? > > Las Vegas shooter got off [about 90 shots in 10seconds.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html) Videotape yourself doing that with a revolver and I’ll buy you a really good bottle of whiskey (or whatever your poison is). Since you said “about as fast” I’ll accept 75 rounds or more in 10 seconds. (This does not mean you can shoot six bullets almost as fast…it means you can put 75+ rounds down range in 10 seconds or less with a revolver.) One guy demos firing 8 shots a\* second. \* ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/79 "2018-04-21T17:39:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > One guy demos firing 8 shots a\* second. \* The reload is important. Show me 75 rounds down range with a revolver in less than 10 seconds. If you can’t then they are not equivalent to an AR-15 (or near enough) for a comparison. If you can I will send you a really nice bottle of whatever it is you like to drink. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/80 "2018-04-21T17:41:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > One guy demos firing 8 shots a\* second. \* On a 6-shot revolver? Very impressive. You have a link? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=5)