LeviF

Charles C.W. Cooke: "Bret Stephens Indeed Does Not Understand the Second Amendment"

A Hollywood guy a pervert? Color me shocked. Just shocked.

I live in one of those areas where people shut off their lights and bolt the doors on Halloween for fear of something out of The Purge being reenacted.

Literally nothing barring some equipment that you can't just carry into a concert.

The "serve and protect" bit came from LAPD some time ago. It's not every department's mission statement.

Man the rap references the past couple of months on TSW have been on point.

Ya don't say?

In fairness, what we tend to think of as a "mass shooting" and those mass shootings that are gang-related are very different with regard to motive/thinking behind them. "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Feinstein has her pile of bodies to stand on, she's happy. What, that Americans are exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms? Also, if someone repeatedly blogs about "resisting" and "fighting against" the current government and that doesn't set off an alarm at the NSA, something is very wrong. Right? Just as long as we're "alarmed" by people exercising their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Well evidently you don't, why would you expect anyone else to?

Why should we be taxed to death so that the leftist wet dream of a third world utopia can be indulged in?

FTFY. I don't typically wish ill on anyone but Burfict deserves it.

Yinzers are probably some of the most insufferable fans in the NFL, I'd say second only to Pats* fans.

That is...

FTFY Who the !@#$ is "you guys?" I've said it multiple times in this thread. Don't like the 2nd? Change it.

Wouldn't even matter if he did lose his license. He was willing to drive outside the bounds of his restricted license. He'd be willing to drive without one at all.

Fake news! Sad!

Well it certainly doesn't hurt

Eh. It's hard to say without seeing pictures of the crowd from his vantage point. Lots of gunshot wounds can be fatal if you can't effectively stop the bleeding. Like Tom said, definitely doable with a "spray and pray" sort of method. Trying to kill 59 specific people...tough. Trying to kill as many as you can in a mass of thousands and get 59 in nine minutes? Definitely not impossible.

EII is Booster & John Wawrow?

I'm not an expert or anything but I know a bit. For really good knowledge there are some gun forums out there that I'm sure have covered it in depth, now that we're getting some details on his equipment.

Minor quibble - automatic weapons are legal in a sense, on the federal level. They're expensive - almost prohibitively so - and you need a tax stamp that can take 2+ years to get. But private citizens can own them.

Fair enough. But what they did and didn't do is more important than what they may or may not have thought. They were very purposeful in their drafting of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights).

Oh no, you're right on those numbers. Though Tom is also right that effective rate of fire is much different than the rate that they're technically capable of firing. What I take issue with is that the founders had no idea that there would ever be rifles that could fire faster than one could shove powder and a ball down a muzzle. Such rifles already existed. And even if they didn't, I tend to think the founders were less short-sighted than that.

Again, a canard with no grounding in reality.

True enough. But notice that 1. The court has changed, and will change again soon and 2. Scalia did not even try to define "dangerous and unusual" weapons.