Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Liquid

NFLTG
4,620
805
Over there
Why would the 2nd apply to electric doodads? A firearm, or “arm” is pretty clearly defined.

Electric doodads? Certainly not an arm. Batt powered sex toys have more in common technologically with a taser than a firearm does.

Electric doodad rifles that shoot discs with stored electrons are already out there, not super deadly - yet. Definitely rapid fire capable.

And high powered air guns that shoot large, 1/2" - 3/4" slugs are also not considered a firearm. Seriously deadly though!

The definition of a 'firearm' is and will become rather problematic as nature always finds a way around a constraint!
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,320
5,512
De Nile
Electric doodad rifles that shoot discs with stored electrons are already out there, not super deadly - yet. Definitely rapid fire capable.

And high powered air guns that shoot large, 1/2" - 3/4" slugs are also not considered a firearm. Seriously deadly though!

The definition of a 'firearm' is and will become rather problematic as nature always finds a way around a constraint!
"fire"
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
Why would the 2nd apply to electric doodads?
Because when it came to Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice, her choice was to defend herself with a stun gun instead of a lethal handgun.

The handgun would have been legal but grabbers said that the stun gun was not because the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech.

Scalia specifically said this interpretation bordered on frivolous, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court went with it anyway.

SCOTUS overturned, but I take it from your post that you're one of those here who think that Massachusetts got it right and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech. Is that what you're saying? Or what is the point of your question if not?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
The definition of a 'firearm' is and will become rather problematic as nature always finds a way around a constraint!
Don't follow him down the "firearm" road. The second amendment protects "arms" and when (not if) grabbers try to narrow what that means, sensible people don't need to cooperate.

Nunchuks are arms. So are knives. And yes, so are stun guns, despite not being invented in 1789.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
You've got something worthwhile to bring to the conversation, but you also have a shtick that is unethical and ineffective. I'm simply going to post a gory picture in reply when you behave that way. You know, feedback.
Speaking of ineffective, your picture did nothing to convince me that the Bill of Rights should only apply to 18th century technology.

You can try a different pic, but I expect the same result. Try explaining your point on this topic in words instead.
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,320
5,512
De Nile
Because when it came to Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice, her choice was to defend herself with a stun gun instead of a lethal handgun.

The handgun would have been legal but grabbers said that the stun gun was not because the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech.

Scalia specifically said this interpretation bordered on frivolous, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court went with it anyway.

SCOTUS overturned, but I take it from your post that you're one of those here who think that Massachusetts got it right and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech. Is that what you're saying? Or what is the point of your question if not?
It doesn’t seem to apply to missiles, grenades, etc.

But you also ignore the militia language so nothing new for you.

My “opinion” is that your gun fetish is a mass sickness killing Americans at an incredible clip. Unfortunately it has metastasized. What you dumb asses don’t realize is the freedoms you’ve given up due to you fears.
 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
The handgun would have been legal but grabbers said that the stun gun was not because the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech.

Scalia specifically said this interpretation bordered on frivolous, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court went with it anyway.

SCOTUS overturned, but I take it from your post that you're one of those here who think that Massachusetts got it right and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech. Is that what you're saying? Or what is the point of your question if not?
Don't follow him down the "firearm" road. The second amendment protects "arms" and when (not if) grabbers try to narrow what that means, sensible people don't need to cooperate.
1657199247555.png
 
Last edited:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
Why would the 2nd apply to electric doodads?
Then after the goalpost shift...
It doesn’t seem to apply to missiles, grenades, etc.
Grenades are not electrical doodads. Getting back to your original objection and how it applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights...

Why would the 1st or 4th apply to electric doodads? Or do you disagree with those applications as well?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
Any discussion of the 2nd Amendment with regard to guns is bootless from the start. It doesn't say a word about guns.

Any discussion of the 2nd Amendment with regard to military/political implication should include recognition that "ARMS" are restricted all to heck. Good reasonable law-abiding Americans cannot "keep and bear" grenades, Stingers, Javelins, mortars, etc etc.

This is one reason why the US Supreme Court has had to do so much tap-dancing around the issue. I bet it's stressful for them, poor things.
Yes, thanks for supporting the idea that "arms" doesn't just mean firearms. As we've discussed before, it also meant the privately owned cannons on the peaceships that President Madison sent to attack British warships.

And the Supreme Court says it also means weapons invented since 1789, disagreeing with the Massachusetts Supremes.

Which "poor things" do you think are confused and which got that question right?
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,267
299
near Seattle, Wa
See the dancer dance. Hi there, Dogballs.

As a response to
  • a yuge and significant SC development, an outlier of common law, FFS;
  • and (another) major school shooting;
  • and parade shootings at Highland Park, (on the Fourth, a nice touch);
I notice that you are hiding behind stun guns.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
Yes, a musket could easily cause a wound like that one.

I take it from your photos that you agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to technology invented after 1789? That's such a dumb idea that TeamD Ranger somewhat plausibly claimed to be joking when he advocated it.

Your idea seems a lot like a joke to me. I think the Bill of Rights (all of it) applies to anything we have invented and anything we might in the future.
 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
Yes, a musket could easily cause a wound like that one.

I take it from your photos that you agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to technology invented after 1789? That's such a dumb idea that TeamD Ranger somewhat plausibly claimed to be joking when he advocated it.

Your idea seems a lot like a joke to me. I think the Bill of Rights (all of it) applies to anything we have invented and anything we might in the future.
1657553458782.png
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
Yes, a musket could easily cause a wound like that one.

I take it from your photos that you agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to technology invented after 1789? That's such a dumb idea that TeamD Ranger somewhat plausibly claimed to be joking when he advocated it.

Pretty much any gunshot wound photo you find could have been made by a musket, but this one isn't any more convincing than the last.

I still think that the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology, even if muskets or modern guns can cause wounds. Post another such pic and I'll think the same thing. Try explaining in words why I'm wrong and why you agree with Raz'r and the others here who want to limit the Bill of Rights to 18th century tech.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,103
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
it looks pretty ugly tom
The fact that musket wounds look pretty ugly doesn't change my view that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech. It does, the Supreme Court was unanimous about it, and those who now want to pack the court to reverse that result are a danger to all of our rights, not just the one they want to undermine.
 




Top