There is absolutely no point in debating the past or the original text of the Second Amendment.
Post-Heller, post-McDonald, it's moot. The Court's word is Constitution.
If the anti-gun (really, pro-authoritarian-state) minority wants to ban firearms: they should lobby for a Constitutional amendment (which will undoubtedly fail), and then lobby for each individual state to ban arms - keeping in mind, some states have arms in their constitutional documents as well.
And then, once all of the appropriate legislative and political actions have been completed, this group can have police (who will need firearms to actually enforce this law, and most of whom are pro-private-firearms themselves) go door to door and round them up.
Sandy Hook, Colorado (3 times in recent memory), Lafayette, San Bernardino, et cetera, et fucking cetera.
Every time one of these shootings happens RKBA repeal gets dragged closer to the Overton window. The only question is how much more human blood must be shed.
Going back to 2010, there have been 182 fatalities[1] in the United States due to mass shootings.
In the same amount of time, there have been about 158 fatalities due to being struck by lightning.[2]
In 2013 alone, there were 611,105 fatalities due to heart disease and 56,979 due to influenze and pneumonia.[3] The stats are a bit out of date, but from 2005-2009, ~3,500 people drowned each year.[4]
If you're worried about yourself or a loved one dying, don't worry about dying in a mass shooting. It's about as likely as being struck by lightning.
Going back to 1996, there have been zero fatalities in Australia due to mass shootings -- as well as fewer shootings, and fewer homicides and suicides overall.
I've read, without checking it out, that methods simply switched to things like arson. Which I'll note was used in the 2 worst US mass murders of this sort.
I don't think he was referring to mass shooters. He was referring to rounding up all those guns owned by normals: law-abiding gun owners spread out across an area of 3.8 million square miles.
Frankly, I don't think the authoritarians have the stomach for gun prohibition. They need to get busy, pronto. It's going to take more, a lot more, than tweets to people who already agree with them. And so far, they've done nothing to get their "Repeal the 2A" ball rolling. Time's a-wastin'.
Frankly, I don't think the authoritarians have the stomach for gun prohibition.
Well, given that we won't take this passively and will start slaughtering them, retail or wholesale (e.g. kill Blue cities by taking out their electrical system), I would hope they don't "have the stomach" for it. Well, prior to using the amendment process to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and even then that wouldn't change the facts on the ground, just like outside of Illinois Heller and McDonald haven't much changed the facts on the ground.
Post-Heller, post-McDonald, it's moot. The Court's word is Constitution.
If the anti-gun (really, pro-authoritarian-state) minority wants to ban firearms: they should lobby for a Constitutional amendment (which will undoubtedly fail), and then lobby for each individual state to ban arms - keeping in mind, some states have arms in their constitutional documents as well.
And then, once all of the appropriate legislative and political actions have been completed, this group can have police (who will need firearms to actually enforce this law, and most of whom are pro-private-firearms themselves) go door to door and round them up.
What could possibly go wrong?