Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Two women have been killed and five others injured after a gunman opened fire in a Florida hot yoga studio.

Scott Paul Beierle killed Nancy Van Vessem, 61, and Maura Binkley, 21, after entering the studio in Tallahassee at 17:37 local time (21:37 GMT) on Friday, police say.

The 40-year-old then apparently turned the gun on himself, Tallahassee Police Chief Michael DeLeo told reporters.

Beierle's motive for "this heinous act" is not known at this time, he added.

Mr DeLeo said his officers responded to reports of the shooting at Tallahassee Hot Yoga within "three, three-and-a-half minutes", by which time Beierle was already dead.

A number of other victims received gunshot wounds, while one person was pistol-whipped.

"There are indications that several people inside fought back and tried to not only save themselves but other people, which is a testament to their courage," Mr DeLeo said.

Two of the victims remain in hospital, while three others have been treated and released.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum - who is currently running as the Democratic candidate for Florida governor - said he would be cutting short a campaign event and returning to the city.

"No act of gun violence is acceptable," he said. "I'm in close communication with law enforcement officials and will be returning to Tallahassee tonight."

NRATV, the National Rifle Association’s broadcast outlet, completely ignored news of an apparently racially motivated shooting at a Kroger grocery store in Kentucky that debunked the already discredited “good guy with a gun” myth and left two dead.

If I did a hit piece on the NRA (the leaders not maybe it's members), it is because I believe they are hugely responsible for many in congress to be against sensible gun laws.

Who the hell among the genuinely poor can afford an assault rifle?

The Supremes have recognized both the states and Congress as having the right to control firearms.

I've already pointed out that people don't need assault rifles.

The 1903 Militia Act, which created the National Guard, posited an organized Militia (the National Guard) and an unorganized militia. The United States Army and the United States Air Force supply the National Guard. There is absolutely no reason of national security for assault rifles to be available to the unorganized militia.

If you have a mind to quibble about what constitutes an assault rifle, find someone else to discuss that with.

All of the second amendment is predicated on a well-regulated militia.

The regulation of the militia is provided for in Article One, Section Eight. Clauses 15 and 16 describing the powers of Congress:

[Congress shall have the power]

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

In The United States versus Miller (1939), the Court upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act. The majority finding was summarized as:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Furthermore, Mr. Justice McReynolds noted:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for Congress, or the states respectively, to determine that a well-regulated militia, of the type described in the 1903 Militia Ace as the unorganized militia, in our contemporary world does not need fully automatic weapons, nor weapons which may be modified to make them fully automatic, or to have the properties of a fully automatic weapon.

I will further note that your participation in a well-regulated militia is contingent upon the constitutional description of participation. That would entail submitting to the discipline prescribed by Congress, under the command of officers appointed by each respective state. That is not consonant with keeping an assault rifle in your closet "just 'cuz I can."

Many people make the argument that the conditions of the late 18th century no longer apply, and that it would be reasonable to make provisions under Congressional authority for dealing with firearms in the contemporary context.

About the only reason I can see that the second amendment has not itself been amended or repealed is NRA money and the electoral cowardice of politicians.

Scalia, in long piece of writing for the majority in Heller, stated emphatically that "there are several ways to control firearms that dont affect 2 (I paraphrase of course).

So let’s turn to an undisputed conservative – one who opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and so many other liberal agenda items. Is it possible to define the kinds of weapons that should not be in civilian hands, and does regulating them violate the Second Amendment?

Here is Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reversed a long-held position and ruled that the Second Amendment did give Americans an individual right to own firearms. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

The prefatory clause to which the justice refers, of course, is the one about “a well-regulated militia.” The AR-15, used in San Bernardino, is an M-16 knockoff.

So rather than saying “assault weapons,” in the future perhaps we should say “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.”