I wrote the following essay in response to a series of lengthy posts on Facebook (I say lengthy, they covered 4 pages on Microsoft Word) in favor of increased gun control legislation, all written by the same author (name removed below), whom I know, following the tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL. As part of his discourse, the author had proposed a plan where 12 witness signatures from fellow law-abiding citizens would be necessary to attest to an individual's fitness/trustworthiness to purchase weapons above some magnitude (though I can't remember at the moment what limit of magnitude was proposed as the cut-off, though it may have been semi-automatic). It took me about 2 weeks to complete the below essay addressing the other author's arguments and outlining my own. I found it an insightful exercise, delving into the philosophical foundations of the two sides -- I hope that you find the essay digestible, helpful, and productive.
ESSAY
Sorry for the delay, [removed]. You wrote a lot, it was a lot to respond to. I will be posting my response in sections for ease of reading and replying.
1
I don't believe that you actually addressed my critique of your 12-witness plan, that it is based on the notion that the right to bear arms is a privilege granted by government. In my usage of the words, 'rights' and 'privileges' are opposite terms.
Rights originate from God, and include life, liberty, and private property. All men, being created equal, possess them by virtue of their Nature, not by their own declaration, education, approbation, or legislation. Rights can be claimed by all individually at the expense of no one else, and do not change with time. Rights are therefore not rewarded, but they can be lost by violation (either as violator or violated) and restored by consent.
Violations of rights include physical harm or death, enslavement by another, and theft or destruction of his property and/or industry; and nearly always require an application of force. The Moral Law of Nature (or Morality) prompts us to avoid violating the rights of others, but Man is imperfect and capable of choosing contrary to Morality, and efforts to violate the rights of others are made by some.
Before the establishment of government and jurisdiction, the responsibility to secure/protect one's own rights belonged to the individual him/herself, as well as the right to use prudent application of force (up to lethal if necessary) to defend him/herself and his/her rights in response to such attempts at violation. This constitutes what I call the right of self-preservation or self-defense.
When government is established, much of the responsibility of protection/security and the authority to use the force necessary to perform it are delegated by the individuals' consent to the government, usually manifested as law enforcement and military -- This is one of the reasons why government is by nature an entity of force and why security is one of the true primary purposes of government. Violations of rights are codified into laws, and become crimes, per the political process adopted by the society.
The question then arises as to the completeness of this delegation of security to the government, and whether it includes the right of self-preservation and the prudent application of force necessary to perform it. If that delegation were complete, then the individual would have no right to self-preservation in any situation. The Second Amendment clarifies that no, the individual remains the ultimate defender of his/her rights in the event that the government fails to protect, regardless of the size of the threat, from a single intruder in the house up to invasion by an enemy government.
Privileges (mistakenly called 'rights' in many instances), on the other hand, don't come from Nature, but originate in the first place from government. They are benefits, favors, gifts of special treatment from people to other people, be it to another individual or group or entity, via governmental edict. At their core, privileges are arbitrary -- "the government giveth, and the government taketh away" at its will.
2
Privileges (mistakenly called 'rights' in many instances), on the other hand, don't come from Nature, but originate in the first place from government. They are benefits, favors, gifts of special treatment from people to other people, be it to another individual or group or entity, via governmental edict. At their core, privileges are arbitrary -- "the government giveth, and the government taketh away" at its will.
2
I noted however that in spite of this apparent understanding, your 12-witness plan actually adopts the exact opposite 'guilty until proven innocent' approach, which, although well-intended, does not respect the natural rights of the innocent.
On the other hand, you conflate the right to bear arms with something you call the 'right to kill. ' What is the 'right to kill'? From your response, I gather that it is something possessed by the murderer (you do not specify if it is possessed by the innocent), that the murderer can exercise it by committing murder (something beyond the notion of killing in self-defense), that it thereby provides what you call 'advantage' to the murderer over the rights of others, which 'advantage' is directly proportional to the murderer's capacity to commit murder, which you describe as being directly related to the type of firearm selected by the murderer, and that this 'right to kill' (under your conflated definition of 'the right to bear arms') is protected by the Second Amendment and therefore defended by those who defend the Second Amendment.
From here, you appear to conclude that the 'right to bear arms'/'right to kill' of the shooter stands in direct opposition to the student's right to life, and that America therefore 'favors mass shooters' as long as it (America) decides to continue granting them (the shooters) their right to kill under the guise of defending Second Amendment rights, and that Second Amendment advocates (whether NRA or otherwise) are morally objectionable people, "complicit in aiding domestic enemies," as you say, and therefore "[enemies] of the American people" and "against students." This logic could only make sense by accepting the notion that murder is a right, and that it was protected by the Second Amendment.
I agree that advocating in favor of someone's right to murder would be egregious, if this right to murder existed. But of course it does not. Since the right to murder does not exist, then no indivudal possesses it. This also addresses your comment about military having advantage over the citizenry -- since no individual had the right to murder in the first, so the right to murder could not be delegated to government, to law enforcement, or to the military, which is evident by the fact that police officers and military personnel are not actually allowed to murder. You of course know this as well. By your own clarification, you know that this 'right to murder' doesn't exist nor is it protected by the Second Amendment, because you write that "the 2nd Amendment implies the right to bear arms is to provide security" and that "the right to bear arms does not give people the right to violate to rights of others, ... to commit crimes with those arms, ...[or] to murder innocent civilians." I agree with that, and all Second Amendment advocates that I know agree with that as well.
I therefore find it more than a little despicable, as well as unproductive, to waste words casting someone as morally reprehensible for no other demonstrable reason than he/she/they disagree with you politically, which seems to be the case here. Second Amendment advocates, at least the ones that I know, do not believe what you say they believe (that people have a right to murder which is defended by the Second Amendment), and you have presented no other evidence to the contrary. At the very least, I find it difficult to understand how such baseless accusations are in line with any expressed desire to engage in discussion, since in my experience they have generally been used for the purpose of intimidating and silencing opposition.
3a
Also, I don't understand your strategy for when you appeal to Originalism to define terms, and when you do not.
From here, you appear to conclude that the 'right to bear arms'/'right to kill' of the shooter stands in direct opposition to the student's right to life, and that America therefore 'favors mass shooters' as long as it (America) decides to continue granting them (the shooters) their right to kill under the guise of defending Second Amendment rights, and that Second Amendment advocates (whether NRA or otherwise) are morally objectionable people, "complicit in aiding domestic enemies," as you say, and therefore "[enemies] of the American people" and "against students." This logic could only make sense by accepting the notion that murder is a right, and that it was protected by the Second Amendment.
I agree that advocating in favor of someone's right to murder would be egregious, if this right to murder existed. But of course it does not. Since the right to murder does not exist, then no indivudal possesses it. This also addresses your comment about military having advantage over the citizenry -- since no individual had the right to murder in the first, so the right to murder could not be delegated to government, to law enforcement, or to the military, which is evident by the fact that police officers and military personnel are not actually allowed to murder. You of course know this as well. By your own clarification, you know that this 'right to murder' doesn't exist nor is it protected by the Second Amendment, because you write that "the 2nd Amendment implies the right to bear arms is to provide security" and that "the right to bear arms does not give people the right to violate to rights of others, ... to commit crimes with those arms, ...[or] to murder innocent civilians." I agree with that, and all Second Amendment advocates that I know agree with that as well.
I therefore find it more than a little despicable, as well as unproductive, to waste words casting someone as morally reprehensible for no other demonstrable reason than he/she/they disagree with you politically, which seems to be the case here. Second Amendment advocates, at least the ones that I know, do not believe what you say they believe (that people have a right to murder which is defended by the Second Amendment), and you have presented no other evidence to the contrary. At the very least, I find it difficult to understand how such baseless accusations are in line with any expressed desire to engage in discussion, since in my experience they have generally been used for the purpose of intimidating and silencing opposition.
3a
Also, I don't understand your strategy for when you appeal to Originalism to define terms, and when you do not.
For example, you did not claim Originalism with your interpretation of 'militia' when you asked "if gun owners don't have to join the militia, aren't they getting away with something," suggesting that the Second Amendment only protects ownership of guns related to military service. And rightfully so, because that is not an Originalist position. George Mason (co-author of the Second Amendment) argued during the Virginia's Ratification Convention (1788) that the militia as understood in his time was "the whole people." This is significant because a militia at the time was understood to mean "each and every abled-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted)" as per the Act of May 8, 1792 (Congress' first militia Act). Clearly, the militia is a subpart of "the whole people," but it is "the whole people" who possess the right to bear arms in the first place. Support for this can further be found in the wording of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which enpowers Congress to form Army and Navy, but only to call forth and organize (not form) militias, suggesting that the militias were already existing. Appropriate, since the Founding Fathers viewed the right to bear arms as a pre-existing individual right.
3b
Also, you also did not claim Originalism when you said that the word 'regulated' in the phrase "A well regulated militia" was actually a modifier for the phrase "right to bear arms," in order to say that "A well regulated militia" implied that "the right to bear arms is limited." And rightfully so, because that is just incorrect reading of English sentence structure, much less Originalism. "Regulated" is modifying "militia" in that phrase, and is not in the same clause as the phrase "right to bear arms." I agree that the Second Amendment is not limitless, but it is not because of this.
3c
In addition, you did not claim Originalism for your larger definition of the debate, which was that the Second Amendment debate is "basically over which weapons [and I think you mean, which firearms] are considered 'arms.'" And rightfully so, because an Originalist would not frame the debate in that way. 'Gun ownership' falls under the umbrella of the 'right to bear arms,' not the other way around. While guns were important tools, the principle of the Second Amendment for the Founders was never about guns per se, but about natural law, particularly the right of the individual to self-preservation, the right to repel force with force in the event that the society fails to prevent it.
For an Originalist then, the debate would be whether the government has the power to decide with what you are allowed to defend yourself, or not. While I agree with you that Originalists call for amendments to change the Constitution, I do not believe that Originalist would argue that "newer weapons require newer amendments," as you surmise, but that it would take an amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. Thus taking this more Originalist position that the Second Amendment is about self-preservation, I believe that Originalists would thereby pose a question regarding gun control similar to your earlier one, "how can we keep guns out of the hands of bad people without limiting the right to bear arms of the good people?"
It seems to me that pursuing the debate in your terms (that it's about "which weapons are considered 'arms') would require one to concede that 1) the debate is in fact about guns and not about self-preservation, and therefore conduct the debate in what I would call non-originalist terms; and that 2) government therefore, yes, has the right to decide with what you are allowed to defend yourself, which is also the opposite of what the Second Amendment says, and therefore not Originalist either.
In any case, our discussion would no longer be about looking for due process solutions that target the rights of violators or imminent violators only, but becomes a discussion looking for arbitrary parameters to implement blanket bans of certain weapons from all citizens, including from innocent citizens. I believe that such an approach punishes innocent citizens, and disregards their rights and value as individuals.
3e
You do however claim Originalism for your interpretation of "arms." As discussed, your purpose in defining "arms" seems to be to determine which firearms are protected and not protected by the Second Amendment, which implies the acceptance of the premise that the principle of the Second Amendment is gun ownership and not self-preservation, which is not an Originalist premise. Without the principle of self-preservation, then it is just about guns. I therefore see no small irony in the appeal to Originalism to guise authority for a point that is only pertinent within a Non-Originalist argument.
Your interpretation also breaks with American constitutional legal tradition. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote (speaking of the argument that "only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment"), "We [the Supreme Court] do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communication..., and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search..., the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the Founding" (District of Columbia v. Heller (No.07-290), which I highly recommend for future reading on the topic).
Let's examine, however, your claim to Originalism in this case. You place great emphasis that there were only "muskets and revolvers" in 1791 when the Second Amendment was passed. You then claim that muskets and revolvers denote the exclusive meaning of the word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment, and not modern firearms. This is what you claim is the Originalist view, I presume because it uses history to reach the conclusion, which has proven to indeed be a novel approach among your methods for defining words, at least during this analysis.
While I do not dispute your summary of the status of mainstream firearms technology at the time of the passing of the Second Amendment, and I concede that Originalism appeals to history to interpret the Constitution, I imagine that you would agree that the presence of muskets and revolvers in 1791 is circumstantial evidence at best, and does not by itself establish what the people of the time were thinking or believed about anything, much less about what they thought or believed about the right to bear arms. In order to establish this, you would need to provide other supporting sources from the time, which would require research, but I imagine that you could learn their views because we have tons of collections of writings from the people of that period.
To demonstrate what I mean, I'll suggest that the word "arms" as used in the Second Amendment does not even refer exclusively to firearms. I offer as my evidence the Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed, from 1773, which defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence," and the New and Complete Law Dictionary from 1771, which defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." Notice the editions of the books provided are from the pertinent time period, and found in the American Colonies at the time just before the Revolutionary War. Originalists would read this and conclude that "arms," even in the way it is used in the Second Amendment, likely did not only refer to firearms.
If we were to consider only the circumstantial evidence you cite (that muskets and revolvers were what they had in 1791), and if we then brainstorm: Could not one just as easily reason that muskets and revolvers were the military-grade weapons at the time, and therefore even military-grade weapons are protected by the Second Amendment? Could not one just as easily reason that we fought the Revolution with muskets and revolvers, which more or less matched the level of firearms technology possessed by the British at that time, and therefore whatever weapons our enemies have could be covered by the Second Amendment? I am of course not advocating any of these interpretations simply by mentioning them in a brainstorm, but my point is, without the clarification/confines of supporting evidence, the same piece of information can yield competing rationales. At this point, what I know is that Originalism does not depend solely on inferences from circumstantial evidence if it can be avoided. The evidence I am familiar with shows that "arms" in the late 18th-century meant the same as it means today, "weapons of attack, armor of defense." This would be closer to an Originalist view.
3f
So, why then claim Originalism at all? Of the five examples I analyzed, you claimed Originalism for only one of them -- and rightfully so, as I pointed, since you did not hold Originalist views for any of them. Yet in the case of the word "arms," where you still did not actually hold an Originalist view, you nevertheless still attempted to invoke Originalism. What propose then did your claim to Originalism serve in your explanations?
I think there are clues in the two following quotes:
1) "How does the 2nd Amendment and the Parkland shooting interact? Simply because some people think that the AR-15 style rifle he used, and the cartridges he used, were referenced by the 2nd Amendment written 227 years ago. But they weren't. Only in a vague abstract category of "arms," which clearly needs specificity now. That massacre wasn't performed with a musket, it was performed with an AR-15 style rifle, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment."
2) "...and since it's the NRA making the argument for a non-originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then don't all the deaths of innocent civilians in mass shootings fall on the person or people making that non-originalist argument? Should the NRA have to identify the bodies of school shooting victims? Should the NRA have to pay for hospital bills, funeral costs? They're the ones okay with the status quo, they're the ones who insist on a non-originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..."
On the one hand, it is nearly impossible for me to read these explanations in any way so as to not imply that you are directly accusing Second Amendment advocates of being directly responsible for the Parkland shooting, specifically for their interpretation of the word "arms." Before, you were accusing them of being "complicit in aiding domestic enemies," but now they are murderers themselves.
On the other hand, you still provide zero evidence to corroborate your accusation apart from the fact that the people you are accusing do not share your political opinion, which is truly fascistic, and disgusting. I hope, [removed], that you will abandon this tactic in the future. It is unbecoming, to say nothing of unproductive.
3b
Also, you also did not claim Originalism when you said that the word 'regulated' in the phrase "A well regulated militia" was actually a modifier for the phrase "right to bear arms," in order to say that "A well regulated militia" implied that "the right to bear arms is limited." And rightfully so, because that is just incorrect reading of English sentence structure, much less Originalism. "Regulated" is modifying "militia" in that phrase, and is not in the same clause as the phrase "right to bear arms." I agree that the Second Amendment is not limitless, but it is not because of this.
3c
Also, you did not claim Originalism in your interpretation of 'tyranny' as simply meaning "[involving] the cruel use of power," thereby declaring "mass shooters [as] America's new tyrants." And rightfully so, because this would not be an Originalist position either. James Madison wrote: "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" (Federalist No.47). Tyrannies are tyrannical governments, and tyrants are the heads of such governments. This does not describe a mass shooter.
I would of course concede that both tyrants and mass shooters both violate the rights of others. At the same time, there is no question that people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, or even (to take a less dramatic example) George III, whom I would argue were actual tyrants per Madison's definition (and therefore, tyrants in the Originalist sense), are exponentially more dangerous to the rights (including, many times, the lives) of a much greater number of people than mass shooters. None of this is to say that mass shooters are somehow less disgusting for not being tyrants, but it should stand to reason that if we want to prevent mass shootings, the most deadly of which in US history (Las vegas shooting) killed 59 people at a time, then we should certainly want to prevent tyrants, the 13th most deadly of which in the world from the 20th century on (per thedailybeast) was Enver Pasha of Turkey, whose regime killed an estimated 1.1-2.5 million people in 5 years. Again, I'm not pleading for mass shooters. Mass shootings are bad. I am absolutely in favor of preventing mass shootings. I am saying however that it would make sense that we should not want tyrants (in the Originalist sense) as well.
This is important because many Second Amendment advocates still argue that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment was so that the citizenry could defend themselves against James Madison's definition of tyranny, particularly should the United States government go the way of all other democracies in world history, and become tyrannical. And in this they would be correct -- when writing about arms, the Founding Fathers most frequently wrote about the people defending themselves against tyranny. You, [removed], actually disregard the Originalist notion of tyranny as a combination of old-fashioned and stupid, claiming it to be something about which Second Amendment advocates "fantasize," and against which muskets are sufficient to fight. It is clear that you don't take seriously the idea of tyranny in the Originalist sense, only the "contemporary interpretation" I suppose.
3dI would of course concede that both tyrants and mass shooters both violate the rights of others. At the same time, there is no question that people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, or even (to take a less dramatic example) George III, whom I would argue were actual tyrants per Madison's definition (and therefore, tyrants in the Originalist sense), are exponentially more dangerous to the rights (including, many times, the lives) of a much greater number of people than mass shooters. None of this is to say that mass shooters are somehow less disgusting for not being tyrants, but it should stand to reason that if we want to prevent mass shootings, the most deadly of which in US history (Las vegas shooting) killed 59 people at a time, then we should certainly want to prevent tyrants, the 13th most deadly of which in the world from the 20th century on (per thedailybeast) was Enver Pasha of Turkey, whose regime killed an estimated 1.1-2.5 million people in 5 years. Again, I'm not pleading for mass shooters. Mass shootings are bad. I am absolutely in favor of preventing mass shootings. I am saying however that it would make sense that we should not want tyrants (in the Originalist sense) as well.
This is important because many Second Amendment advocates still argue that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment was so that the citizenry could defend themselves against James Madison's definition of tyranny, particularly should the United States government go the way of all other democracies in world history, and become tyrannical. And in this they would be correct -- when writing about arms, the Founding Fathers most frequently wrote about the people defending themselves against tyranny. You, [removed], actually disregard the Originalist notion of tyranny as a combination of old-fashioned and stupid, claiming it to be something about which Second Amendment advocates "fantasize," and against which muskets are sufficient to fight. It is clear that you don't take seriously the idea of tyranny in the Originalist sense, only the "contemporary interpretation" I suppose.
In addition, you did not claim Originalism for your larger definition of the debate, which was that the Second Amendment debate is "basically over which weapons [and I think you mean, which firearms] are considered 'arms.'" And rightfully so, because an Originalist would not frame the debate in that way. 'Gun ownership' falls under the umbrella of the 'right to bear arms,' not the other way around. While guns were important tools, the principle of the Second Amendment for the Founders was never about guns per se, but about natural law, particularly the right of the individual to self-preservation, the right to repel force with force in the event that the society fails to prevent it.
For an Originalist then, the debate would be whether the government has the power to decide with what you are allowed to defend yourself, or not. While I agree with you that Originalists call for amendments to change the Constitution, I do not believe that Originalist would argue that "newer weapons require newer amendments," as you surmise, but that it would take an amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. Thus taking this more Originalist position that the Second Amendment is about self-preservation, I believe that Originalists would thereby pose a question regarding gun control similar to your earlier one, "how can we keep guns out of the hands of bad people without limiting the right to bear arms of the good people?"
In any case, our discussion would no longer be about looking for due process solutions that target the rights of violators or imminent violators only, but becomes a discussion looking for arbitrary parameters to implement blanket bans of certain weapons from all citizens, including from innocent citizens. I believe that such an approach punishes innocent citizens, and disregards their rights and value as individuals.
You do however claim Originalism for your interpretation of "arms." As discussed, your purpose in defining "arms" seems to be to determine which firearms are protected and not protected by the Second Amendment, which implies the acceptance of the premise that the principle of the Second Amendment is gun ownership and not self-preservation, which is not an Originalist premise. Without the principle of self-preservation, then it is just about guns. I therefore see no small irony in the appeal to Originalism to guise authority for a point that is only pertinent within a Non-Originalist argument.
Your interpretation also breaks with American constitutional legal tradition. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote (speaking of the argument that "only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment"), "We [the Supreme Court] do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communication..., and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search..., the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the Founding" (District of Columbia v. Heller (No.07-290), which I highly recommend for future reading on the topic).
While I do not dispute your summary of the status of mainstream firearms technology at the time of the passing of the Second Amendment, and I concede that Originalism appeals to history to interpret the Constitution, I imagine that you would agree that the presence of muskets and revolvers in 1791 is circumstantial evidence at best, and does not by itself establish what the people of the time were thinking or believed about anything, much less about what they thought or believed about the right to bear arms. In order to establish this, you would need to provide other supporting sources from the time, which would require research, but I imagine that you could learn their views because we have tons of collections of writings from the people of that period.
If we were to consider only the circumstantial evidence you cite (that muskets and revolvers were what they had in 1791), and if we then brainstorm: Could not one just as easily reason that muskets and revolvers were the military-grade weapons at the time, and therefore even military-grade weapons are protected by the Second Amendment? Could not one just as easily reason that we fought the Revolution with muskets and revolvers, which more or less matched the level of firearms technology possessed by the British at that time, and therefore whatever weapons our enemies have could be covered by the Second Amendment? I am of course not advocating any of these interpretations simply by mentioning them in a brainstorm, but my point is, without the clarification/confines of supporting evidence, the same piece of information can yield competing rationales. At this point, what I know is that Originalism does not depend solely on inferences from circumstantial evidence if it can be avoided. The evidence I am familiar with shows that "arms" in the late 18th-century meant the same as it means today, "weapons of attack, armor of defense." This would be closer to an Originalist view.
So, why then claim Originalism at all? Of the five examples I analyzed, you claimed Originalism for only one of them -- and rightfully so, as I pointed, since you did not hold Originalist views for any of them. Yet in the case of the word "arms," where you still did not actually hold an Originalist view, you nevertheless still attempted to invoke Originalism. What propose then did your claim to Originalism serve in your explanations?
I think there are clues in the two following quotes:
1) "How does the 2nd Amendment and the Parkland shooting interact? Simply because some people think that the AR-15 style rifle he used, and the cartridges he used, were referenced by the 2nd Amendment written 227 years ago. But they weren't. Only in a vague abstract category of "arms," which clearly needs specificity now. That massacre wasn't performed with a musket, it was performed with an AR-15 style rifle, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment."
2) "...and since it's the NRA making the argument for a non-originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then don't all the deaths of innocent civilians in mass shootings fall on the person or people making that non-originalist argument? Should the NRA have to identify the bodies of school shooting victims? Should the NRA have to pay for hospital bills, funeral costs? They're the ones okay with the status quo, they're the ones who insist on a non-originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..."
On the one hand, it is nearly impossible for me to read these explanations in any way so as to not imply that you are directly accusing Second Amendment advocates of being directly responsible for the Parkland shooting, specifically for their interpretation of the word "arms." Before, you were accusing them of being "complicit in aiding domestic enemies," but now they are murderers themselves.
On the other hand, you still provide zero evidence to corroborate your accusation apart from the fact that the people you are accusing do not share your political opinion, which is truly fascistic, and disgusting. I hope, [removed], that you will abandon this tactic in the future. It is unbecoming, to say nothing of unproductive.
