Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Ishmael

52,261
12,124
Fuctifino
You asked for my thoughts on how the second amendment relates and I told you that reducing the efficacy of the militia isn't consistent with keeping it. If you want to reduce the efficacy of the militia, repeal the amendment.
What militia? All I see is a bunch of fat old cosplayers dragging big guns around.

 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,155
2,598
Outer Banks
What militia? All I see is a bunch of fat old cosplayers dragging big guns around.
I think the militia might include those guys depending on the wind that day but I'm the militia, and the guy next door and across the street. The widow two doors down has shown me hers. That's four shooters on this end of a real short street. Same shit, 238 years later. It's who we are.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,001
1,864
Punta Gorda FL
THIS IS ABOUT THE ABILITY OF THE KID TO GET THE GUNS!

 If he had a muzzle loading flint lock, this never would have happened.
Ah, another fan of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that the Bill of Rights applies only to 18th century tech?

Terrible idea in my view. It WILL be applied to technology and rights that you support if you should "win" this argument.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,001
1,864
Punta Gorda FL
"Dangerous"? By definition a weapon is "dangerous". That's it's sole purpose.

"Unusual"?... WTF is "Unusual"? A Jewish space laser may be unusual, but you can't just carry one around in your pocket.....

 Maybe a hand gun that shoots knives instead of bullets.... I could easily see those being regulated.... :rolleyes:
When the MA Supremes wanted to justify their ban, they said stun guns were dangerous and unusual.

Possibly anticipating laughter in the US Supreme Court chambers when they presented that argument and a Justice responded with "but it would be OK for Ms. Caetano to get a nice, safe handgun instead," the emphasis was changed when SCOTUS accepted the case.

The new argument was that the 2nd amendment, unlike any other part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, only applies to technology in existence when it was written. Scalia had specifically said that this argument "bordered on frivolous" but that warning was not enough and it was brought to SCOTUS anyway.

Where it lost unanimously.

Which Supreme Court do you think got that question right? We have people here who support limiting the 2nd amendment (but no other rights) to 18th century tech and I suspect this is one reason the idea of court packing has become so popular lately.

Getting enough gungrabby Justices on the court and that inconvenient Caetano precedent can be reversed and the 2nd limited to muskets. I think precedents like that spread to other rights so I think it's a terrible idea. How about you?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,001
1,864
Punta Gorda FL
You take one part of the amendment as fact, What about the first sentence about maintaining a well trained Militia ?

Yes every house should have a Musket not a weapon of mass destruction, so where do you draw the line, the bigger the better?

View attachment 513458  a picture of the last guns I fired, my weapon of choice!

Most gun nuts talk about wanting to shoot their neighbor, I read it as we have a right to work together to fight for a free state, not kill each other, 

You can have an abortion. Using 18th century medical technology, of course.

Don't like it when your idea spreads to other rights? Stop with the stupid ideas that would never be applied to any other right.

 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,248
741
jupiter
You can have an abortion. Using 18th century medical technology, of course.

Don't like it when your idea spreads to other rights? Stop with the stupid ideas that would never be applied to any other right.
Rights? who give you these so-called rights? GOD, (if you're a believer) the president, or king.? Anyone who gives rights can take them away, The Musket is a pun that just maybe the 2nd Amend should be rewritten or even eliminated, cause how it was written and applied goes back 250 years, and things have changed ie; we now have the greatest military in the world and the chances another state or country taking us over is 0! so why do people need assault weapons? (I have no problem with single shoot hunting rifles or handguns for home protection}

Here's a video I highly recommend watching about RIGHTs

George Carlin - You have no rights - YouTube

On Abortion the Republican Governors want women to go back the good old way "a metal clothes hanger" I guess that would be going back to the 18th century? Pre Roe/Wade

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,001
1,864
Punta Gorda FL
The Musket is a pun that just maybe the 2nd Amend should be rewritten or even eliminated, cause how it was written and applied goes back 250 years, and things have changed ie; we now have the greatest military in the world and the chances another state or country taking us over is 0!
When you take a position that's consistent with your other positions and that has won at a state Supreme Court and been to the US Supreme Court, it's not at all obvious that it's any kind of joke or pun.

We currently have Congress and the DOJ looking into a recent takeover attempt. It really can happen here and that standing army really can be a threat to the people, just like standing armies since forever.

 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,248
741
jupiter
I'm 100% behind reducing killing efficiency of civilians who gun down others. Plus, as far as I know, civilians cannot kill others legally.
kind of hate to disagree, it seems like civilians in some cases, can legally kill "stand your ground" Look at Rittenhouse. There was just a guy acquitted for shooting a guy for texting and throwing popcorn at him in a movie theater, As the guy was afraid that the popcorn may kill him? probably a lot more.

 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,248
741
jupiter
When you take a position that's consistent with your other positions and that has won at a state Supreme Court and been to the US Supreme Court, it's not at all obvious that it's any kind of joke or pun.

We currently have Congress and the DOJ looking into a recent takeover attempt. It really can happen here and that standing army really can be a threat to the people, just like standing armies since forever.
Matthew McConaughey STUNS with most PASSIONATE Speech of the Year - YouTube

 

LB 15

Cunt
When you take a position that's consistent with your other positions and that has won at a state Supreme Court and been to the US Supreme Court, it's not at all obvious that it's any kind of joke or pun.

We currently have Congress and the DOJ looking into a recent takeover attempt. It really can happen here and that standing army really can be a threat to the people, just like standing armies since forever.
Not to mention the great threat those school children pose. Abortion once won in the Supreme Court as well Tommygun and that looks like being overturned. 

Be assured Tom, one day they will be coming for your guns. If you think that is a legitimate reason to rise up against the Gobbenment, then knock yourself out. Toms wife’s dog balls against an Abrams tank. Should be quite the match up.

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,311
4,160
New Oak City
We currently have Congress and the DOJ looking into a recent takeover attempt. It really can happen here and that standing army really can be a threat to the people, just like standing armies since forever.
Actually it was that standing army, the DC Guard, which helped stop that insurrection even if the Guard was delayed by your boy Shitstain, the piece of shit who had instigated the insurrection in the first place. If you prefer it was delayed by your boy's boy General Charles Flynn, brother of the treasonist.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,001
1,864
Punta Gorda FL
Actually it was that standing army, the DC Guard, which helped stop that insurrection even if the Guard was delayed by your boy Shitstain, the piece of shit who had instigated the insurrection in the first place. If you prefer it was delayed by your boy's boy General Charles Flynn, brother of the treasonist.
I thought the TeamD party line was that "the people" means "the militia" which means "the national guard." Now they're the standing army?

Let me guess: you agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Court and want SCOTUS reversed on the topic case and think that's a good enough reason for court packing?

 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,978
1,288
I love Carlin and I appreciate his sentiment, but the literal purpose of the 'great American experiment' is that power does NOT flow from on high, to be metered out to the masses but rather, flows from the masses themselves. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

People have value and have worth, simply because they are.  That's where hope lives and power begins.  People do not get rights from the powerful - they give up rights begrudgingly as a necessary evil of living on a shared planet.

One of the greatest scenes in modern cinema.




 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,001
1,864
Punta Gorda FL
Meanwhile I will advocate that the 2nd A means you can own and bear muskets that existed in the late 1700's.
Again? Wasn't the humiliating unanimous defeat for your plan in the case of Caetano's body, Caetano's choice enough for you? You need for that stupid idea to be unanimously rejected again?

Why so slow to get the lesson the first time?
 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,201
4,300
Just go ahead and fuck right off again you little bitch. And go tell a friend about it, Tommy Asshole.

edit: While you are fucking right off how about you dig deep in your dogballs and explain my defeat in Caetano's body since I have zero idea what you are fucking whining about now you feckless pissant.
 
Last edited:

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,201
4,300
Again? Wasn't the humiliating unanimous defeat for your plan in the case of Caetano's body, Caetano's choice enough for you? You need for that stupid idea to be unanimously rejected again?

Why so slow to get the lesson the first time?
I decided to quote you since it's never clear when you will awaken and release the illibertarian library of tomfacts. In case I forgot, did i mention you are a weasel 1st class? If you continue to reply to my posts to other people I will continue to point out what a scummy pond reject of a slug you are.
So, have a nice day.
 

Latest posts




Top