Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

[Blue Crab]

We already do a bunch of infringement ... It would be no real big deal to carve out another for semi auto mechanisms.

Long run: as president, I'd order a long overdue update of the various issues with all amendments and Con issues like interstate commerce and so forth.

Interesting bit from Duke LR: Thoughts on syntax

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

We already do a bunch of infringement ... It would be no real big deal to carve out another for semi auto mechanisms.

Ah, ignore. Not a great idea.

The big deal seems to me to be that those weapons are the most suitable for militia service.

But then, I actually read the first part of the amendment and think about what it might mean in terms of the kinds of weapons that we the people have a right to keep and bear.

 

[Blue Crab]

If we're allowing advanced weapons, we gotta allow advanced thinking... for the win.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

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?

If we're allowing advanced weapons, we gotta allow advanced thinking... for the win.

OK think about this. Clean is a smart lawyer. I asked about the central argument made by Massachusetts before the US Supreme Court in the thread topic case. It's literally argument 1 A in their table of contents, as my image above showed. And he "doesn't know" what I'm talking about?

I thought the question pretty clear without the context and crystal clear with the context.

 

[Blue Crab]

I wasn't following the discussion close enough but without going back, my experience with Clean is that he doesn't bullshit around. You are the opposite. Example: I answered your question with another carve out infringement to ban semi-autos based ENTIRELY on 350 mass shootings since New Years, and you termed that as "ignore," and missed this entirely: If we're allowing advanced weapons, we gotta allow advanced thinking... for the win.

The early thinking was men with muskets and guerrilla tactics could overcome an army of men with muskets with bright red coats standing in a line ... cuz that's what happened. Weaponry has advanced. Give every cracker with a truck ten ARs. A fed force will destroy them with other stuff rather than close combat, then walk in and pick up the ARs, destroying the meal teams' positions to save them. That's how it works these days.

There are well over half a million Army and Marines. Trained fighters with carry weapons and another half million Air Force and Navy to keep everyone's head down and coastal areas off limits. The Second Amendment is archaic right along with your rigid thinking.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I wasn't following the discussion close enough but without going back, my experience with Clean is that he doesn't bullshit around. You are the opposite. Example: I answered your question with another carve out infringement to ban semi-autos based ENTIRELY on 350 mass shootings since New Years, and you termed that as "ignore," and missed this entirely: If we're allowing advanced weapons, we gotta allow advanced thinking... for the win.

Your experience is very different from mine, but if you want to believe an attorney couldn't figure out the main argument in the topic case, believe it.

Your answer to my question translated to "ignore" for a couple of reasons.

You say we already infringe so that makes doing it more OK. Fail. That makes doing it more worse, not better.

Also, as I pointed out (but you missed) semiauto's are the very most suitable weapons for milita service (as long as we're going to continue to restrict full auto's to rich people). So even if some infringement justified more, I'd respond that it doesn't justify going after the weapons that the second amendment should protect most.

As for the article you posted, it said this:

If we assume that the Second Amendment was grammatical, then its being-clause belonged to one of these four types or a documented area of overlap between them. The temporal reading would indicate that whenever “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A conditional interpretation would entail that if “A well regulated Militia” is ever “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The external causal interpretation would mean that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” for the purpose of “A well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State”. The internal causal would indicate that because it is known that “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, it is concluded that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

The author does a lot of dancing around, but the bolded was obviously the intended meaning.

And this:

Of course, understanding the relation between the clauses does nothing to answer the question of how often a “A well regulated Militia” was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free State” and consequently how often “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Perhaps such a militia was thought to be a permanent necessity, in which case the right to bear arms for that purpose would be perpetual. This is an issue for historians, not linguists. It is also a matter of debate as to whether the founders’ opinions on this issue outweigh those of present-day theorists, who might disagree on the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”. This is an issue for legal scholars.

That's bolded BS. It's an issue for us. We can change that amendment. Or just ignore it. Your approach seems to me to be "ignore" for the reasons I gave. And you ignored.

As for your "advanced thinking" it seems pretty retrograde to me. About a hundred years ago the Temperance people were right that having alcohol in our country leads to problems, so they banned it. Had they been right about what would happen next, this might have worked out well. They were not.

Similarly, the war on cannabis is causing more problems than it ever solved. Guns aren't drugs or alcohol, but ongoing bans and confiscation programs are seeing the same result.

In CT, they banned unregistered assault weapons and magazines years ago. Billy started a thread about it. Is the state free of those things? Of course not. A few complied and now the state has tens of thousands of felons who possess unregistered guns and magazines.

Advanced thinking for the win, to me, would be no more stupid prohibition programs.

 

[Blue Crab]

Crapoloosa TT. The Duke bit was just for your enjoyment. I read the first paragraph and knew you'd love it. You're welcome.

The rest of your post indicated the inflexibility of your brain. As I mentioned, the entire militia idea is out of date. The new Second Amendment will read, "Having found weapons of war will be misused by fuckups, auto and semi-auto loading mechanisms in pistols and rifles shall be banned from private use. Sorry about that!"

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

As I mentioned, the entire militia idea is out of date.

I have no argument with that point. The idea was to prevent a standing army and the really long, stupid adventures like Afghanistan that come along with it. Didn't work. "So repeal it" is a reasonable response. "So ignore it" is crapola.

The new Second Amendment will read, "Having found weapons of war will be misused by fuckups, auto and semi-auto loading mechanisms in pistols and rifles shall be banned from private use. Sorry about that!"

We really don't need an amendment, a stupid prohibition program could be enacted in legislation. The alcohol one was done as an amendment mostly to make it harder to undo.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The new Second Amendment will read, "Having found weapons of war will be misused by fuckups, auto and semi-auto loading mechanisms in pistols and rifles shall be banned from private use. Sorry about that!"

So semiauto shotguns are OK with you?

They seem like effective militia weapons to me, so I think they should be protected, but I'm a bit surprised you think they're OK. Why?

 

[Blue Crab]

Fuck off Tedious Tom. Semi auto loaders.

 

[jocal505]

How's it goin', dogballs?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

How's it goin', dogballs?

'bout like usual. Mindless grabbers calling me names. Yourself?

 

[jocal505]

'bout like usual. Mindless grabbers calling me names. Yourself?

If you see me as mindless, you are lying to yourself, Dogballs.

And I am well. I have you on modified ignore, and am finding in Heather Cox Richardson the overview thing that I had hoped to get from you.

 

[Keith]

'bout like usual. Mindless grabbers calling me names. Yourself?

At least seven injured in shooting at Los Angeles park

At least seven people were injured following gunfire at a Los Angeles park on Sunday, the Los Angeles Fire Department said.

www.reuters.com

 

[Blue Crab]

"mindless grabbers"

 

[jocal505]

Curiously, I find that Tom thinks regally. He broadcasts what we should believe. He decrees who has a mind, and who doesn't. He determines who is a reader, and who is a non-reader.

Sound like freedom to you?

 

[Blue Crab]

Tom who?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Keep on believing that there's no way an attorney like Clean could figure out what this thread is about. Or just distracting with more mindless messenger attacks.

Thing is, I'll keep on believing that this is NOT how we treat the Bill of Rights and this case shows me that nothing can go too far for grabbers. Not even that argument that Clean missed but I managed to find and circle in red.

 

[Marty Gingras]

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

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.

Marty makes some interesting arguments for the other side. I'm still not persuaded. How about you? Having seen some of his pictures, do you still believe that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech?