To be fair 8-shot revolvers exist. And a 10-shot. (Probably some with more than that…I dunno.)
Not that comparison of school massacres is the point, but I think it should be remembered that the single worst school massacre in US history was primarily done with a large bomb. He also used a truck bomb that had a smaller body count. Oh, and this was in 1927, so this sort of thing is very much not new, even if it wasn’t done specifically with a pressure cooker.
Of course, it should be noted that this is a person who had skills in bomb making, completely unfettered access to the school, and there were no restrictions or tracking on purchasing explosives at the time. He then spent an extended period of time installing the bombs.
If someone were to try to do this again today, even with his skills there would be numerous obstacles in his path to prevent someone from copying his actions.
What obstacles have we put in place to prevent people from following the actions of a school shooter?
Huh? I haven’t responded to any of your posts in this thread, so I’m surprised you think I was implying anything at all about you. Just to be clear, I was not.
And also, just to be clear, I don’t advocate the use of Originalism in interpreting the constitution. I personally favor Textualism, but that’s different from Originalism. I would not claim to know what the founders were thinking, aside from what they wrote in the text. People often like to think there were just a handful of founders, but every single person who voted to ratify the constitution was a “founder” and had thoughts about what he was signing up for. It would be silly to assume they were all thinking the same thing. And, to be even clearer on that matter, I would not scold someone for preferring a different interpretation technique, especially one that is within the mainstream of legal thinking. I might object if they picked different techniques under different circumstances in order to reach a preferred outcome. Object, not scold, in GD. 
You’re wrong. Both the quoted post about “any weapon” and your view that:
Caetano forecloses your view completely.
Facts not in evidence. But if someone argues that the law of the land is something that is completely ruled out by existing and current precedent, then that would be like arguing abortion is unconstitutional, or separate but equal is allowable. All of those positions are not the current law.
I am not arguing how the law currently stands. I think Heller is a bullshit, illogical decision but it remains the law.
Are you suggesting the law as it stands today makes logical sense? That Scalia didn’t magic away the militia in the 2nd amendment and that the 2nd talks about self defense and that the 2nd allows the court to restrict what arms you might possess?
Or are you staking your flag on what the law says today and that is the final word, never to be changed and should not be subject to scrutiny?
For what it’s worth, the interpretation I favor is the moral one: The Constitution and other laws should be interpreted in whatever way is most good and just. Of course there will be disagreements on just which way that is… and that’s why we have judges. And sometimes this will mean that my interpretation agrees with a literalist one, and sometimes it’ll agree with an originalist one, and sometimes it’ll agree with neither, and that’s not a problem for me.
Not a 6-shot, but sure. So, we have 8 rounds per second. If he takes 0 time to reload, then he can almost keep up with an AR-15.
How long do you realistically think that it takes to reload with a speedloader? I saw him do it, but it was hard to time, I slowed it down, and think it was somewhere between a third and a quarter of a second. Do you think if it is less than a quarter of a second? I can’t really see it being much faster than that. So, that adds a second of time for every 32 rounds fired. 8 shots per second gets you to 80 rounds in 10 seconds. figure in reloading loses you 1.5 seconds, so you are down to 68. I also noticed that his shots were all over the place. Most were just puffing up dust on the hill behind the target. This is also assuming that he can keep reloading and shooting at that speed over several reloads without fumbling.
Now, you see that the video you linked is “Fastest Shooter EVER”, so, assuming that they are not completely full of it, do you think that you think that you average someone who can use a bump stock on an ar-15 to knock out 90 rounds in 10 seconds can do anything near that with the revolver, or is that something that requires fairly extensive and dedicated training for quite a number of years?
So, basically, you are saying that the best gunslinger in the world can almost compete with an amateur with an AR-15, that does not make these guns at all comparable in lethality in a mass shooting scenario.
I would suggest that. I would not suggest that if the 2nd amendment had been written something like this:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-or-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms while serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
It’s seems perfectly logical to read the existing amendment to mean: *From time to time, the state will need to call up a militia. In order for that militia to be well regulated [trained and provisioned], the people [each person in the state] need[s] to be able to posses and to use their own firearm[s] and that right shall not be infringed. *
Or, more simply: The people need to have the right be keep and bear arms so that the state may call upon any one of them to serve in a militia.
Whether a person does or does not serve in a militia, he still has the right to keep and bear arms. That is not to say that is the only logical interpretation of the amendment, but it is certainly a logical interpretation.
Consider an amendment that said: A literate militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Would you consider the keeping and reading of books to only be a right if one were serving in the militia? Or would you consider that keeping and reading books was a necessary right that the people had in order that they would be prepared for potential service in the militia? That is to say, the right to keep and read books precedes any service one might perform in a militia.
Every discussion like this is further evidence that Jim Jefferies is right about guns: *“There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun. And here it is… ‘Fuck Off! I like guns!’ It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got. All the rest is bullshit.” *
Yeah, he’s a comedian. But he’s not wrong.
You seem to be neglecting the “well regulated” part.
Also, Scalia did not interpret it like you did. He just did away with the militia part and wrote in a self-defense part.
Brilliant bit. I send that to people any opportunity I get (which is admittedly rare but definitely worth sharing). Note there is a Part 2 of that routine.
Its only a bit of a stretch, it was collective self-defense against hostile natives. These days, no real threat from the Huron or the Iroquois, though it is rumored there is some unrest among the Chickasaw.
In that case, why would we need a constitution at all? We would just judge any law or action by the government as to whether or not it was good and just. The constitution represents what we, collectively, think is good and just. Your suggested method of interpretation would allow the sanctioning of an action by the government even if that action were explicitly forbidden by the constitution. Or, it would allow the outlawing of an action by the government even if it were explicitly allowed in the constitution.
For example, I think the death penalty is bad and unjust. Could I, as a judge, say that the death penalty is disallowed for treason even thought the constitution explicitly says it is allowed? And if I can do that, of what use is the constitution?
I like your method for amending the constitution, but not for interpreting it.
“The First Amendment says I can say the Second Amendment sucks dicks.”
Definitely brilliant.
Huh? It was explicitly written, and explained, in the part you quoted.
No, that’s not really correct. One can acknowledge that the militia part is the or a purpose of the right, without declaring that it places a limit on the right. The right precedes the act of serving in a militia, going back to The [British] Declaration of Rights in 1698:
- the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.*
It should be noted that this was not a case of allowing only Protestant to possess arms for defense, but rescinding the stripping of arms from some Protestants in favor of Catholics, as referenced in the complaint against actions by King James:
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.
Scalia interpreted it very much like I said:
The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved
That doesn’t exactly “do away” with the militia part. As I said, the right precedes the necessity of forming the militia. And the people have that right for a variety of reason, one of which is self-defense. The self-defense right isn’t something he just pulled out of thin air.
There is no reason to call that an illogical interpretation. It’s perfectly logical. Whether or not it’s desirable is a separate issue. But it is logical.
The LV shooter was by no means a amatuer. And there are a number of shootists that can get around those numbers.
But yes, it is easier to fire lots of rounds with a semi auto. No one is claiming otherwise. However, that does not equal more deadly.
OK, true, nobody’s abolished the militias by taking away everyone’s guns. Ronald Regan used a completely different method to abolish the militias.
Isn’t that what you were doing in post #59?
The one that was factually incorrect? I mean, we can all pontificate on how we wish things to be, if that’s what you’re dipping.