He not only used a semi-automatic rifle, rather than a revolver, but his shooting was stopped when he had to reload, and was charged by a patron and had the weapon wrestled away from him.
Fair enough. A justice does not have the authority to simply ignore a specific law. But the devil is always in the details. Liberal and Conservative court justices interpret the same laws in substantively different ways. Sure, simply ignoring laws would/should get a judge into hot water. But courts do exercise certain flexibility in interpretation of the law and it’s not by chance that they tend to do so based on their political or moral inclinations.
Look out, Chronos! This could be a trap! Reductio ad absurdum delenda est!
Yeah, I don’t see Chronos saying that his method produces “the only possible correct outcome”. I believe he is saying it produces the best outcome, but not the only correct outcome.
Except anchor babies are yet another right wing fantasy I’m just lost in a right wing fantasy . . .
It isn’t the Constitution that is the problem on that score. It’s the right wing assholes who scream about their freedom while passing laws to oppress their fellow citizens.
They want the right to overthrow any government that opposes them, even if it is a legitimately elected government of their political opposition. They threaten to do so regularly. They de-legitimize the government on a regular basis to try to make themselves superior to it, not subject to it, claiming that they are the moral, cultural (and legal) center of our nation.
Oh, and Benefactor Member. I used to be one for about 20 years. They had some program in the 1980’s where you could get it for something like a $500 contribution.
I resigned several years ago and admittedly, about 10 years too late for my own comfort. The NRA board is made up of traitors, frauds, liars and criminals.
Yeah, but the Commies are funding the NRA.
Or, the constitution is a bit vague and poorly worded about X, or does not directly address X as X is something that did not exist at the time. Some people think that that means that X is prohibited, and some people feel that that means that X is permitted.
A judge that thinks that X is good and just may favor the interpretation that permits X, even though there are those who disagree, and feel that their interpretation is the more correct one.
The supreme court never explicitly claims a part of the constitution is bad so it must go but they get there in practice.
Consider how thoroughly the 4th amendment has been gutted. Consider how many times the 9th amendment has been used as the primary basis of a supreme court ruling (hint: zero). And as has already been noted Scalia effectively re-wrote the 2nd amendment by getting rid of the militia part and adding a self defense part.
Altho indeed, in mass shootings semi-auto rifles have been the most common, they are used in almost no murders. No USA mass shootings have been committed with “assault rifles” which are select-fire and military only.
Disagrees in what way?
He had a desire to kill a bunch of people. He did not take your advice of using a revolver and learning to be a trick shot.
Instead, he used a semi-automatic rifle, because he recognized that being able to fire more bullets, with better accuracy and range, does make it more deadly.
I’m just still trying to get my head around your claim that being able to fire more bullets more accurately over a shorter period of time doesn’t make a gun more deadly, so I am showing you examples of actual people who actually decided to go out and kill as many people as possible, and it does seem as though choosy mass killers choose semi-automatic rifles.
Fortunately for being able to come up with examples, but a bit less fortunately for the people who are killed and maimed, the lack of any obstacle to prevent anyone who wants one from getting their hands on just about any gun they want, means that we can look at uite a number of mass shooters, and determine what their very favoritest gun was.
Well, since I said “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.” There is no disagreement. A semi-auto does have a greater rate of fire.
The idea is to fire rapidly and ACCURATELY. It’s not a coincidence that sniper rifles are mostly bolt action. Semi-auto or select fire is useful in Military for suppression fire, not so much for killing.
None of that makes it sound like a good, or even useful, self-defense weapon; rather, its function is to kill people in a hurry before *they *can defend themselves against you. Correct?
What is it that you believe is being accomplished with this pedantry? Is anyone in this thread asking for advice on how to kill the most people in a more efficient manner?
My bold and underline.
There is disagreement.
Bolt action is useful for very long range. We are talking about stuff in the 20-40 feet range here. It is a bit longer than is really accurate with a handgun, but not nearly what you need a bolt action for.
Your claim is that a revolver is just as deadly as a semi-auto rifle. Not sure what reason you have for now throwing in other military equipment in, but I will note that snipers are usually supposed to take out a single target at a distance, not indiscriminately kill, as a mass shooter is like to do.
I made no such claim, in fact the opposite. What I said is that a revolver can fire almost as fast as a semi-auto, which I proved. And certainly a revolver can be used to "rapidly commit mass murder:. But indeed, a semi-auto does fire faster for most users, and for a mass shooting *can *be more deadly.
Smapti : Or, say, a revolver that holds six shots and can’t be used to rapidly commit mass murder?
My response:
It is to laff. With speedloaders, you can fire a revolver just about as fast as a semi-auto.
Your words:
Smapti says that a revolver is not as useful for mass murder, and you “laff”, with the claim that you can fire it “just about as fast”, which we have determined is not much better than half that of a semi-auto, and that by a person with the claim of the fastest shot in the world. Even if the rate of fire were anywhere close to equal, there are other benefits a semi-auto rifle have over a revolver when it comes to killing lots of people in a short order of time, but you “laff”, rather than address those.
Of course not. I’m wrong sometimes, too, being a mere fallible human and all. Of course, don’t ask me for examples, because if I knew on what specific points I was wrong, I’d change my view on those points. But I’m confident that points on which I am wrong exist.
And I would much rather have a judge who attempts to do what is right, even if he sometimes fails, than a judge who boasts of not caring what is right.
Oh, okay, semantics.
Yeah anyway, guns.
Guns are easier to use than craft brew bombs.