Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
If a court decision does not address something, that means there is no decision on it. Volokh points this out, and your hot take is that "one of those awful libertarians agrees with me"? Where does he agree with you?
This, in paraphrase, is a playback of our conversation.

(Tom, thumping chest) Caetano grants stun gunz to the universe, it's unanimous. Dred Scott never had it so well.

(Joe) dogballs. Eugene Volokh sent me. You better tell Dred to keep that thing under his roof.

(Tom) Blah blah, the people are good to go with stun guns. Rah rah, no kumbaya.

(Joe) Mr. Volokh offered that the decision does not approve these things outdoors.

(Tom) Mr. Volokh said no such thing. Careful now, don't tread on the pompoms.

(Volokh, insisting) The Caetano Supreme Court opinion thus doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places.

(Joe) Amen, Alleluia.

(Tom) Okay, Volokh said it, cuz no court addresses/blesses ouitdoor gunz  (slinks away)

(DeadEye Dick) Wha…?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
(Volokh, insisting) The Caetano Supreme Court opinion thus doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places.
He's right, which is why this is wrong.

In the topic case, that stun gun, basically, was restricted to the home, according to the libertarian Eugene Volokh.
You have a serious wishful thinking problem here. If the court doesn't address an issue, it doesn't address the issue. Jumping to the conclusion that not addressing the issue means we had indoor militias is common among grabbers but historically ignorant. We had outdoor militias.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
He's right, which is why this is wrong.

You have a serious wishful thinking problem here. If the court doesn't address an issue, it doesn't address the issue. Jumping to the conclusion that not addressing the issue means we had indoor militias is common among grabbers but historically ignorant. We had outdoor militias.
Why are you crowing about the Caetanp case, if it's not good to go? As indicated by Volokh, it's useless  except for family squabbles.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,076
1,885
Punta Gorda FL
Why are you crowing about the Caetanp case, if it's not good to go?
Because the unanimous SCOTUS rejection of the idea that the Bill of Rights only applies to 18th century technology has caused all but the most stupid to stop saying stuff like this:

I'm for the 2nd Amendment , every house should have a Musket
So that's a good thing to me, except for the really stupid among us.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
Tom , it was a joke ! , lighten up, or are u....................
It was a pertinent joke.

The rate of firepower, and the morbidity of firepower, and the range of firepower, and the availability of battlefield firepower, have each changed. Word.

So non-musket injuries, with increasing body perforations, each of a more severe nature, with increasing frequency, are being faced by the doctors and courts, and the nice judges spell this out. Kolbe came right out and said the "modern sporting" effect was worse than other semi-automatics, therefore not good to go.

You were correct, basically, and @Plenipotentiary Tom,  I can cite today's nuances about battle-bred weapons, in the surgery room, and from the bench. 

Yo, garuda,  thanks for your bit in Vietnam, and for your extra bit in Vietnam. Seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
Pardon me, my head is spinning. 

 He's (Mr. Volokh is)  right, which is why this is wrong.

(Tom quotes Joe) In the topic case, that stun gun, basically, was restricted to the home, according to the libertarian Eugene Volokh.




Tom, this is a test. It's both a test of your grasp of the facts, and a test of your credibility.

Is Ms. Caetano's stun gun legally viable outdoors, based on the topic case?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
Mr. Volokh offered that the decision does not approve these things outdoors.
That's pretty funny but he never said any such thing.
Did he say it, or not? dogballs, you are like a falsehood factory; your retraction factor now falls @ six retractions per month. BYW, I can see your cheerleader panties when you prance about. 

*********

introducing THE DYLANN ROOF OLYMPICS four years of Dylann games, with our host Tom "dogballs" Ray

  • Dylann Roof caught you in a race-baiting fury, eh? Eighty days of it? dogballs indeed.
  • Do you think Dylann coulda just used a stun gun, is that your underlying presentation?
  • Do you think Dylann Roof, you know, race-baited around a bit, with Rev, Pickney et al?
  • If not, why not?
  • You've got the moves. Just when is race-baiting appropriate?






 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
Is Ms. Caetano's stun gun legally viable outdoors, based on the topic case?
Yes, because in the end the charges were dropped.
No, cuz Volokh, and cuz all case law, and cuz dogballs even agreed, before grand dissemblage.

Volokh didn't say it but he's right when he said it
(Volokh, insisting) The Caetano Supreme Court opinion thus doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places.
(Tom) He's right, ….(then forked tongue bullshit)


 


*******

But let's get ready, for all the big Dylann Roof Day celebrations. I'm gonna broadcast the five-year anniversary of non-stop race-baiting on Political Anarchy. Sophisticated, progressive men watched you repeat twelve forms of general race-baiting, and two forms of personal race-baiting, each sustained. These men are gonna love your shit in the bright lights, evidently.

The working title is no problem.

announcing THE RACEBAITER TIME MACHINE  five years of interesting behavior


I just hate loose ends.

  • In the PR hoopla, do you want dogballs capitalized, or low key with the lower case?
  • In the poster art, do you prefer THE dogballs, or what?
  • You like time machines, right?
  • Could you maybe contribute a little piece on the NAACP?
  • Do you write any Taney or Dred Scott poetry?

Let's get on it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,624
60
New Jersey
Why are you crowing about the Caetanp case, if it's not good to go? As indicated by Volokh, it's useless  except for family squabbles.
Where does the decision ever suggest that you are only allowed to defend yourself in the home, Joe? Please quote _from_ the decision.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
Where does the decision ever suggest that you are only allowed to defend yourself in the home, Joe? Please quote _from_ the decision.


you are only allowed to defend yourself in the home
Gun possession is not the same as "defense." But even wearing a seat belt or having a  peephole in the front door is defense.

And you keep getting this backwards. I have no burden to document castle doctrine, d'oh.. The onus lies upon you to show case law for Larry Pratt's new, imaginary, outdoor gun rights.

So here we are, and here's a handy summation. In Caetano (according to Eugene Volokh, the classy, non-race-baiting Libertarian), there are no outdoor stun gun rights to be found...(even the charges were dropped. :rolleyes: )

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
IOK class, back to the OP

Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

In Tom's hands? absolutely !!
No doubt. In Tom's hands, family squabbles would be minimal.

We had problems with an individual. As a matter of decorum, I get the police do all my fighting for me. More than once, curly little brass wires were dripping out the back door of a cruiser when it left. Think brass "Slinky", wound around a fast, aero, pencil.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,624
60
New Jersey
And you keep getting this backwards. I have no burden to document castle doctrine, d'oh.. The onus lies upon you to show case law for Larry Pratt's new, imaginary, outdoor gun rights.
I realize that you are slow, Joe. But you claimed this - only a few days ago.

. In the topic case, that stun gun, basically, was restricted to the home,
Now, Joe - it is a really short decision - please quote from it to back up your claim.

Don't quote an article that you clearly misunderstand - quote the actual SCOTUS decision.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,265
299
near Seattle, Wa
. In the topic case, that stun gun, basically, was restricted to the home,
Now, Joe - it is a really short decision - please quote from it to back up your claim.
If you want tricks done, upgrade the goldfish to a shelter dog. 

This is a quiz. This is page three of the stun gun thread and I'm not feeling the joy yet.

q. Did the Caetano case law allow Ms. Caetano and Genghis Khan freewheeling use of stun gunz?

a.____________ (wait for it, DeadEye will provide us the answer).

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top