Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,217
2,614
Outer Banks
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?
No problem. Of course it does.

I'd still ban semi-auto weapons for citizens, however, now that the fun is gone and we've seen the result.
 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,213
4,306
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.
Woof Woof! Go Musketeers!
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,267
299
near Seattle, Wa
Woof Woof! Go Musketeers!


1657823188844.png


1657823136057.png
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,102
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
No problem. Of course it does.

I'd still ban semi-auto weapons for citizens, however, now that the fun is gone and we've seen the result.
It's nice to have at least one person agree with me about how we treat the Bill of Rights.

As for your idea of fun, mine is very different. We saw that the fun was gone from alcohol and cannabis, among other things, and banned them. It hasn't gone well at all and has caused more problems than it solved. Obviously, I'm in the minority on that one too, as the rest of the country chose a career drug warrior as President.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,102
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
I don't know what you are asking here. Do you have two specific cites to compare/contrast?
Maybe my response was a bit lengthy. This, CLEAN. I'm asking about this. The circled part that is the thrust of their argument. Yes, I fucked up circling it. Got a new Photoshop Elements and I'm completely lost so decided to play with something that really doesn't matter. You.

Caetano.jpg
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,102
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
His bashing of Hunter is a sad and desperate attempt to make himself feel better, pathetic and telling but his toolbox is empty.
Funny, I feel the same way about your bashing of me and your inability to admit that you didn't even know your position on the second amendment wasn't a joke at all, but had won at a state Supreme Court.
 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,213
4,306
I'm stunned. Stunned I tell ya, gobsmacked upside the head stunned that I hurt your feelings (again?) and haven't apologized. I suggest you go tell our friend I was mean to you and ask nicely for your wife to stroke your Dogballs until you feel better.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,102
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
I'm stunned. Stunned I tell ya, gobsmacked upside the head stunned that I hurt your feelings (again?) and haven't apologized. I suggest you go tell our friend I was mean to you and ask nicely for your wife to stroke your Dogballs until you feel better.
I guess that makes you feel better than just admitting that you didn't know grabbers already adopted your frivolous idea and won in a state supreme court with it. Still pathetic.
 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,213
4,306
The moment I wake up
Before I put on my makeup
I write a little post for you
While combing my hair, now,
And wondering what to tell that friend now
I write a little post for you

Forever, and ever, ever
(You'll stay in my heart and I will mock you)
(Forever) Forever, and ever, assuming this gets added to the Tomipedia respository of all posts to be reposted at random and odd moments. can I get an Amen.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,102
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
Definitely ineffective, Marty, as I still believe that the Bill of Rights applies to technology invented after 1789.

Possibly unethical too. I think your use of other peoples images is probably legal under fair use, but do those people want their images used this way? Some of them may even share my view that the Bill of Rights applies to technology invented after 1789. And you're using their images to fight against that idea. You should at least check.

Or maybe think of some more effective way to convince me that the Bill of Rights does not apply to technology invented after 1789. Then you wouldn't need to check.
 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,217
2,614
Outer Banks
Definitely ineffective, Marty, as I still believe that the Bill of Rights applies to technology invented after 1789.
I cannot imagine we have any reader, including guests and the banned-curious, who would disagree. I think they're great, not generally lethal, and few worries of collateral damage beyond lawsuits.

Where's the beef?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,102
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
I cannot imagine we have any reader, including guests and the banned-curious, who would disagree.

A couple here who disagree have been quoted in this thread already, so you don't have to imagine them at all, just read what they wrote.

Then there are others like CLEAN, who won't say whether they think the Bill of Rights applies to post 1789 tech. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit suspicious about the position they might take, if they ever took a position. Perhaps it has to do with my reading the posts I referenced from supporters of the Massachusetts approach to the BoR.
 

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
30,404
5,582
Maybe my response was a bit lengthy. This, CLEAN. I'm asking about this. The circled part that is the thrust of their argument. Yes, I fucked up circling it. Got a new Photoshop Elements and I'm completely lost so decided to play with something that really doesn't matter. You.

View attachment 528627
Interesting posits, I wonder how deep the shock will be when a future Supreme Court beheads Heller after what has been done to Roe?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,102
1,888
Punta Gorda FL
Interesting posits, I wonder how deep the shock will be when a future Supreme Court beheads Heller after what has been done to Roe?
Or, getting back on topic, they could just render Heller moot by reversing the Caetano result and allowing grabbers to act like the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech.

By the way, do you agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the US one on that question?
 




Top