Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
One out of three isn't bad. I thought the first sentence made it pretty clear which notion we were talking about and am not surprised that you still can't give a direct answer to whether freedom of the press applies to entities like the NY Times. It's a hard question from your point of view.
it's a hard question to compare apples to horse-driven carriages.
There is no "freedom of speech" law. There are 200+ years worth of laws that have been found constitutional regarding speech, some are aimed at individuals, others at groups of individuals i.e. Corporations.

It's a stupid question. Sorry life doesn't work in 20 second soundbites.
There's an amendment, not a law. Does the "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment apply to pre$$ corporations?

 

LB 15

Cunt
What I thought most interesting about that was that the decision was sent back down to the lower court and told to actually follow Heller as they reconsidered it and there were no dissents from the SCOTUS. I think Alito is correct in that they are "grudgingly" beginning to accept that Heller was actually pretty well thought out and was unlikely to be overturned.
Reminds me of the court sending US v Stewart back to the 9th for them to reconsider in light of Gonzalez vs Raich. The reconsideration was a formality as the conclusion in light of Raich was obvious: homegrown machine guns for personal use are not that different from homegrown cannabis plants for personal use.
But Tom there would be no background checks on people growing their on pot. What if one of them had a brain snap, grabbed some of their stash and went to the mall. Hundreds of innocent bystanders could get stoned.At least people with home made machine guns are only likely to harm themselves.
Tell it to the court. They're the ones who found that the two were similar enough that one should be decided in light of the other.
Says something about your courts and all 2A decisions they have made doesn't it. Could they be more out of touch with reality?I have a question for you Tom and all the rest of you 2A apologists. Would you be willing to die for the cause of keeping your guns?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
What I thought most interesting about that was that the decision was sent back down to the lower court and told to actually follow Heller as they reconsidered it and there were no dissents from the SCOTUS. I think Alito is correct in that they are "grudgingly" beginning to accept that Heller was actually pretty well thought out and was unlikely to be overturned.
Reminds me of the court sending US v Stewart back to the 9th for them to reconsider in light of Gonzalez vs Raich. The reconsideration was a formality as the conclusion in light of Raich was obvious: homegrown machine guns for personal use are not that different from homegrown cannabis plants for personal use.
But Tom there would be no background checks on people growing their on pot. What if one of them had a brain snap, grabbed some of their stash and went to the mall. Hundreds of innocent bystanders could get stoned.At least people with home made machine guns are only likely to harm themselves.
Tell it to the court. They're the ones who found that the two were similar enough that one should be decided in light of the other.
Says something about your courts and all 2A decisions they have made doesn't it. Could they be more out of touch with reality?I have a question for you Tom and all the rest of you 2A apologists. Would you be willing to die for the cause of keeping your guns?
Actually it says more about the expansive interpretations of the commerce power than the second amendment, but you'd have to be familiar with the cases in question to realize that so you're forgiven for your misinterpretation.

I make no apologies for having second amendment rights.

 

LB 15

Cunt
Yes Tom that's what I meant by suspect interpretations of 2A by your courts. Now my question. Would you be willing to lay down your life to protect your 2A rights. I didn't ask you to apologise for it. You didn't write it.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
Yes Tom that's what I meant by suspect interpretations of 2A by your courts. Now my question. Would you be willing to lay down your life to protect your 2A rights. I didn't ask you to apologise for it. You didn't write it.
The suspect interpretations by Stevens and Breyer didn't win in court.

To answer your question, I'd first want to know who is trying to kill me to end my second amendment rights and under what circumstances. Who do you think is willing to lay down their life to do that?

 

LB 15

Cunt
Suspect interpretations , like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder. Lets say it is the government sponsored gun grabbers. Lets say the 2A is abolished and gun ownership is banned. Now Tom just answer the question without your usual mike W like deflections.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
Suspect interpretations , like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder. Lets say it is the government sponsored gun grabbers. Lets say the 2A is abolished and gun ownership is banned. Now Tom just answer the question without your usual mike W like deflections.
I would certainly disobey such a ban. I'd try to stay alive while doing it. But you asked about dying for a cause, which implies something like this is going on again:

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I'd have to believe in the possibility of establishing a better government to see a cause worth dying for. In case you haven't noticed, our country is about to elect either Hillary or Trump as President. Either way, it seems to me that the possibility is remote at best.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
Getting back to the thread topic, we used to have some posters here who thought that the Bill of Rights applied only to technology available at the time it was written...

Tom, I was hoping you could link me to any court decision which went into the following logic or argument:

"The First Amendment applies to the Internet even though it hadn't been invented when the Constitution was written; so the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a modern sporting rifle."
Yep, found another one.

That there thing was written in 1791, so, it seems reasonable to me that it means flintlocks, brothers.

ie; " the right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks, shall not be infringed.”

Yeah, that sounds about right, and, given the knuckledragging mentality of most 2nd amendment freaks everthing else should be fair game, imo.
Oops, the entire Supreme Court just disagreed. The "per curiam" opinion indicates they think their disagreement with your opinion is non-controversial.

I read the Fourth, I didn't see a damn thing in there about cellphones.
And that's where the line of thinking that the SCOTUS just dismissed leads. That's why they dismissed it.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,899
4,947
De Nile
One out of three isn't bad. I thought the first sentence made it pretty clear which notion we were talking about and am not surprised that you still can't give a direct answer to whether freedom of the press applies to entities like the NY Times. It's a hard question from your point of view.
it's a hard question to compare apples to horse-driven carriages.
There is no "freedom of speech" law. There are 200+ years worth of laws that have been found constitutional regarding speech, some are aimed at individuals, others at groups of individuals i.e. Corporations.

It's a stupid question. Sorry life doesn't work in 20 second soundbites.
There's an amendment, not a law. Does the "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment apply to pre$$ corporations?

The supremes would review constitutionality as appropriate

 

Vgree

Super Anarchist
4,433
164
OKC, Oklahoma
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,899
4,947
De Nile
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.
The odds of confiscation are so low as to be laughable.

The odds that the militias will be used by a tyrant are much higher.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.
The odds of confiscation are so low as to be laughable.

...
The odds of confiscation for those with arms in a closed registry, like Billy's mean-looking rifle with its registered magazine, are nearly 100% if he doesn't get rid of it out of state before dying.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.

 

LB 15

Cunt
Getting back to the thread topic, we used to have some posters here who thought that the Bill of Rights applied only to technology available at the time it was written...

Tom, I was hoping you could link me to any court decision which went into the following logic or argument:

"The First Amendment applies to the Internet even though it hadn't been invented when the Constitution was written; so the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a modern sporting rifle."
Yep, found another one.

That there thing was written in 1791, so, it seems reasonable to me that it means flintlocks, brothers.

ie; " the right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks, shall not be infringed.”

Yeah, that sounds about right, and, given the knuckledragging mentality of most 2nd amendment freaks everthing else should be fair game, imo.
Oops, the entire Supreme Court just disagreed. The "per curiam" opinion indicates they think their disagreement with your opinion is non-controversial.

I read the Fourth, I didn't see a damn thing in there about cellphones.
And that's where the line of thinking that the SCOTUS just dismissed leads. That's why they dismissed it.
Of course the Supreme court could find the other way at sometime in the future.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,899
4,947
De Nile
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.
The odds of confiscation are so low as to be laughable.
...
The odds of confiscation for those with arms in a closed registry, like Billy's mean-looking rifle with its registered magazine, are nearly 100% if he doesn't get rid of it out of state before dying.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.
The supremes have found reasonable regulation is fine. Cry me a river

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,236
287
near Seattle, Wa
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.
The odds of confiscation are so low as to be laughable.

...
The odds of confiscation for those with arms in a closed registry, like Billy's mean-looking rifle with its registered magazine, are nearly 100% if he doesn't get rid of it out of state before dying.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.
Thus, The Badgeless Poseur once again applauds the (unlawful) non-compliance of gun safety law.

This reflects on TR's selective libertarian manipulation of the constitutional process.

What kind of country results from such civics, and such values?

 
G

Guest

Guest
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.
The odds of confiscation are so low as to be laughable.

...
The odds of confiscation for those with arms in a closed registry, like Billy's mean-looking rifle with its registered magazine, are nearly 100% if he doesn't get rid of it out of state before dying.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.
Thus, The Badgeless Poseur once again applauds the (unlawful) non-compliance of gun safety law.

This reflects on TR's selective libertarian manipulation of the constitutional process.

What kind of country results from such civics, and such values?
When abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade and women were sneaking off in to back alleyways to get an abortion - what sort of values would you ascribe to those women who disobeyed the law then?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.
The odds of confiscation are so low as to be laughable.

...
The odds of confiscation for those with arms in a closed registry, like Billy's mean-looking rifle with its registered magazine, are nearly 100% if he doesn't get rid of it out of state before dying.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.
Thus, The Badgeless Poseur once again applauds the (unlawful) non-compliance of gun safety law.

This reflects on TR's selective libertarian manipulation of the constitutional process.

What kind of country results from such civics, and such values?
One in which Raz'r statement is mostly true, but not because banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation." Simply because unreasonable regulation can't be enforced.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,899
4,947
De Nile
I think you will find a shocking number of men and women who would be willing to risk their life to protect their 2nd amendment rights.

It also turns out that a huge number of those willing to are trained veterans and law enforcement.
The odds of confiscation are so low as to be laughable.

...
The odds of confiscation for those with arms in a closed registry, like Billy's mean-looking rifle with its registered magazine, are nearly 100% if he doesn't get rid of it out of state before dying.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.

Thus, The Badgeless Poseur once again applauds the (unlawful) non-compliance of gun safety law.

This reflects on TR's selective libertarian manipulation of the constitutional process.

What kind of country results from such civics, and such values?
One in which Raz'r statement is mostly true, but not because banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation." Simply because unreasonable regulation can't be enforced.

Did someone say "Banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation"" other than Publius?

 
Top