Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

[Marty Gingras]

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.

 

[d'ranger]

I guess Tommy Dogballs is going to be butthurt forever about me having my own TeamD. Must be a product of living as a Looney Losertarian.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

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.

What is this 'pack the court' shit Tom? The number of justices must be expanded to meet the number of circuits, as was always intended. It's certainly long past time for an amended judiciary act. We're only a few top GOP convictions, a few dead teenage girls from back alley abortions, and a few more southern mass shootings away from being able to get it done in 2023, along with amendments to the Voting Rights Act, codifying the right to abortion, and the For The People act. As soon as a tiny bit of fairness and accountability is introduced back into the system, the GOP will never again win a national election, which is the only thing now that can save the US from christian autocracy.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What is this 'pack the court' shit Tom? The number of justices must be expanded to meet the number of circuits, as was always intended.

I actually agree with that, but the comments I've seen suggest adding more than 4.

Haven't had a lawyer come along to ask, but I'm curious what you think. Do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court is right about the question of whether the Bill of Rights covers technology invented since 1789?

 

[hasher]

Tom is never wrong.
And the Court examines the "right" to obtain an abortion in the Nation's history and tradition, because the Court's job is to like you know explain traditions and culture and history to the Nation, not fiddle about with laws and legal exactitude... oh wait

The rules are what I say. Bow now or off with your head.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The rules are what I say. Bow now or off with your head.

Oh good another lawyer. Just what everyone always needs.

Since you're here, do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court is right about the question of whether the Bill of Rights covers technology invented since 1789?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I guess Tommy Dogballs is going to be butthurt forever about me having my own TeamD. Must be a product of living as a Looney Losertarian.

Did you know that the position you "jokingly" took had won in a state supreme court before I informed you of that fact?

Seems like you must not have known. Given the age of this thread, your dedication to maintaining your ignorance would be commendable if I were a fan of willful ignorance.

 

[hasher]

Oh good another lawyer. Just what everyone always needs.

Since you're here, do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court is right about the question of whether the Bill of Rights covers technology invented since 1789?

Some people say he's my double. It's Kris in the early days. The Silver Tongued Devil and I.

 

[d'ranger]

Did you know that the position you "jokingly" took had won in a state supreme court before I informed you of that fact?

Seems like you must not have known. Given the age of this thread, your dedication to maintaining your ignorance would be commendable if I were a fan of willful ignorance.

If you were as bright as you think you are then you wouldn't just keep on posting the same shit over and over. Or do you believe the rest of us are just stupid? It's hard to tell with the only thing predictable is your responses which go on and on and on and on. Like this one is going to make a difference.

 

[Marty Gingras]

Massachusetts Supreme Court

 

[Marty Gingras]

If you were as bright as you think you are then you wouldn't just keep on posting the same shit over and over. Or do you believe the rest of us are just stupid?

In that regard he is unethical and deeply ineffective.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

I actually agree with that, but the comments I've seen suggest adding more than 4.

I've seen comments too, though to me the plan is only workable if it responds to the population. For instance, the most recently-created circuit is the 12th in 1982, when the US population was what - 220M? So the number of circuits should be increased roughly in parity with the population if they are to provide the services they were created to provide in any kind of prompt manner. The math indicates that is 17 circuits.

And for fuck's sake, we very obviously need about a thousand more congresspeople in order to have a functioning legislature.

Haven't had a lawyer come along to ask, but I'm curious what you think. Do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court is right about the question of whether the Bill of Rights covers technology invented since 1789?

I don't know what you are asking here. Do you have two specific cites to compare/contrast?

 

[hasher]

Did you know that the position you "jokingly" took had won in a state supreme court before I informed you of that fact?

Seems like you must not have known. Given the age of this thread, your dedication to maintaining your ignorance would be commendable if I were a fan of willful ignorance.

People get paid off. A sad fact of life. Stick your fucking gun up your ass where it will do the most good.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I don't know what you are asking here. Do you have two specific cites to compare/contrast?

Yes. The thread topic case is what I'm asking about here.

A brief history to catch you up. In the Heller opinion, Scalia said:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

My remark at the time was that such an argument obviously jumped way over that border and really should be the joke that TeamD Ranger thought it was. But it wasn't.

In Commonweath v Caetano, Massachusetts said:

The conduct at issue in this case falls outside the “core” of the Second Amendment, insofar as the defendant was not using the stun gun to defend herself in her home, see Hightower 693 F.3d at 72 & n. 8, quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783, and involves a “dangerous and unusual weapon” that was not “in common use at the time” of enactment.

Their opinion emphasized the "dangerous and unusual" argument but did make the very argument that Scalia called frivolous.

When it got to SCOTUS, the emphasis changed and the brief in opposition relied primarily on the frivolous argument. SCOTUS apparently still thought it frivolous, as do I. They said:

Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam.

So, I ask again the main question of the thread. Do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court is right about the question of whether the Bill of Rights covers technology invented since 1789?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

View attachment 528362

An interesting point, I admit, but any of the cannons mounted on the peaceships that President Madison sent after the British Navy could cut down a mast or cut you in half. Still I think the SCOTUS was right and Massachusetts was wrong about whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Seems to me that Justice Thomas thinks the issue decided in the Caetano case may come up again. He said:

We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in
which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning
applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does
not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th cen-
tury.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in exist-
ence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of
“arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding,
that general definition covers modern instruments that fa-
cilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,
577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns)

I'd say it should cover anything that could be useful in resisting a nincomcoup. So a weapon like Dick Heller's .22 revolver should be covered.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Did you know that the position you "jokingly" took had won in a state supreme court before I informed you of that fact?

Seems like you must not have known. Given the age of this thread, your dedication to maintaining your ignorance would be commendable if I were a fan of willful ignorance.

If you were as bright as you think you are then you wouldn't just keep on posting the same shit over and over. Or do you believe the rest of us are just stupid? It's hard to tell with the only thing predictable is your responses which go on and on and on and on. Like this one is going to make a difference.

Your failure to answer makes it seem even more like you must not have known. Doesn't make me think you're stupid, just ignorant. Well, willfully ignorant, which is kinda stupid. But I've met genuinely stupid people and you're not one, you just play one on the internet.

 

[Blue Crab]

you just play one on the internet.

Lotta this going around. It gets attention.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Lotta this going around. It gets attention.

True enough. What doesn't get much attention is questions like this one: do you agree with SCOTUS or Massachusetts on whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology?

Getting past gossip for just a moment, will you answer that one before returning to regular programming?

 

[Marty Gingras]

Seems to me that Justice Thomas thinks the issue decided in the Caetano case may come up again.

do you agree with SCOTUS or Massachusetts on whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology