Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,507
3,338
OK, obviously I'm misunderstanding you. Try to keep it simple for me, with a yes or no answer.

Do you think that the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology or not?
I’m not jumping through your hoops, much as you might consider that a “conversation.”

I’m a firm believer of gun manufacturers and the fossil fuel Companies receiving tobacco firm-type public exposure to generate the revulsion they so richly deserve.

As dealers of death, lies and ruin for considerable profit, these titans of industry prey upon the world and its inhabitants for prestige, yachts and fun.

The sort of Constitutional gamesmanship you worship is not nearly as important as the future I desire for my kids.

I hope that someday soon your legal blatherings are run over just as soundly as Donald Trump’s special master. Delay and obsfucation may be the ally of the criminal sociopath, but they are most assuredly my enemy.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
I’m not jumping through your hoops, much as you might consider that a “conversation.”

I’m a firm believer of gun manufacturers and the fossil fuel Companies receiving tobacco firm-type public exposure to generate the revulsion they so richly deserve.

As dealers of death, lies and ruin for considerable profit, these titans of industry prey upon the world and its inhabitants for prestige, yachts and fun.

The sort of Constitutional gamesmanship you worship is not nearly as important as the future I desire for my kids.

I hope that someday soon your legal blatherings are run over just as soundly as Donald Trump’s special master. Delay and obsfucation may be the ally of the criminal sociopath, but they are most assuredly my enemy.
You came to a thread about whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech and don't want to discuss the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech.

You know what is defeating Trump's special master? Legal blatherings. I guess they're sometimes good?

I don't see why it's a hard question whether the first amendment applies to TV and radio. I think it's a stupid question because the answer is so obvious. It wouldn't even have been a question before SCOTUS if TeamD could be reasonable about guns. But they can't, so the question remains.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
The folks defending Iraq against the US invasion had guns and tanks( also no longer arms) .

If you don’t have modern jets and missiles, you are not sufficiently armed to defend democracy

And we got kicked out of Afghanistan by superior air power?

I don't think modern jets are needed to kick us out because the answer is no. Even if they were, proving jets necessary doesn't prove guns unnecessary. Jets don't hold territory.

It's another stupid discussion, much like whether the first amendment applies to radio and TV, but the inability of TeamD to say no to anything grabbers want means we'll have no end of stupid discussions.
 

Gouvernail

Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
37,988
5,535
Austin Texas
And we got kicked out of Afghanistan by superior air power?

I don't think modern jets are needed to kick us out because the answer is no. Even if they were, proving jets necessary doesn't prove guns unnecessary. Jets don't hold territory.

It's another stupid discussion, much like whether the first amendment applies to radio and TV, but the inability of TeamD to say no to anything grabbers want means we'll have no end of stupid discussions.
The ONLY reason the gun discussions are endless is the 2nd is a poorly written vague piece of neatly meaningless prose.

The absolute only thing it absolutely says is “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

None of the other words mean a damn thing.

There is nothing about rights to manufacture, distribute, market, sell, purchase, or make your own…

And “arms” is an absurdly vague term. Arms toddy could be virtually anything.
Certainly cell phones can accomplish much more lethal results than any musket.

Chemical weapons are certainly arms.

Pipe bombs, bags of fertilizer, soaked and frozen stuffed bunnies thrown from a car window, cars, trucks, frisbees with razor blades imbedded, sporks, bags of blood from AIDS patients, chain saws, nail guns ( certainly more lethal than a musket), tasers, lasers, Magregor 26, bulldozers, ….

Who gets to decide what is an “arm?”

2nd offers ZERO suggestion of what exactly “arms” means. ….. except that bit about a militia might be an example of who might use arms and for what purpose.

What a suck wad piece of prose.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
I’m not jumping through your hoops, much as you might consider that a “conversation.”

I’m a firm believer of gun manufacturers and the fossil fuel Companies receiving tobacco firm-type public exposure to generate the revulsion they so richly deserve.

As dealers of death, lies and ruin for considerable profit, these titans of industry prey upon the world and its inhabitants for prestige, yachts and fun.

The sort of Constitutional gamesmanship you worship is not nearly as important as the future I desire for my kids.

I hope that someday soon your legal blatherings are run over just as soundly as Donald Trump’s special master. Delay and obsfucation may be the ally of the criminal sociopath, but they are most assuredly my enemy.

Thanks, chief. You just said it all.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
On the thread topic, SCOTUS said it all unanimously.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Not to mention inconsistent with how every part of the Bill of Rights has always been treated.
 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,507
3,338
My problem with Tom is that he wants to have a “reasonable discussion” predicated on universal acceptance of his parameters and according to definitions created by a court captured by special interests and industry.

If all the ground rules are in favor of the free and unfettered manufacture, distribution, sales, advertising and purchasing of guns then “legal blatherings” is just coasting along using these structural advantages to maintain the status quo. There is zero discussion of what should or could exist.

I don’t interpret the 2nd the way he does, and I would consider financial or legal limitations on gun ownership. He defines these opinions as unacceptable failures of Team D.

Therefore there is no “reasonable” discussion we can have.
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,194
5,442
De Nile
You came to a thread about whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech and don't want to discuss the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech.

You know what is defeating Trump's special master? Legal blatherings. I guess they're sometimes good?

I don't see why it's a hard question whether the first amendment applies to TV and radio. I think it's a stupid question because the answer is so obvious. It wouldn't even have been a question before SCOTUS if TeamD could be reasonable about guns. But they can't, so the question remains.
I don't think any army is issuing tasers to front line troops, so not needed for militias, therefore, not covered under the 2A.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
My problem with Tom is that he wants to have a “reasonable discussion” predicated on universal acceptance of his parameters and according to definitions created by a court captured by special interests and industry.

If all the ground rules are in favor of the free and unfettered manufacture, distribution, sales, advertising and purchasing of guns then “legal blatherings” is just coasting along using these structural advantages to maintain the status quo. There is zero discussion of what should or could exist.

I don’t interpret the 2nd the way he does, and I would consider financial or legal limitations on gun ownership. He defines these opinions as unacceptable failures of Team D.

Therefore there is no “reasonable” discussion we can have.
You made a great point about the "argumentative nature" of the work of the founding fathers. They disagreed, they had their conversations, then they concluded-- with something constructive, and workable. But our Tom is being Tom Ray: he's merely a one-way megaphone, and all the demagoguery does not form or develop workable, or constructive, solutions. Ever.

In following the Dogballs, I find that republics are to be manipulated, and abused, but not preserved. Republics to not drive him: he's here for the "prestige, yachts and fun." (And fun, for him, becomes some very twisted shit, IMO.)
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
My problem with Tom is that he wants to have a “reasonable discussion” predicated on universal acceptance of his parameters and according to definitions created by a court captured by special interests and industry.

If all the ground rules are in favor of the free and unfettered manufacture, distribution, sales, advertising and purchasing of guns then “legal blatherings” is just coasting along using these structural advantages to maintain the status quo. There is zero discussion of what should or could exist.

I don’t interpret the 2nd the way he does, and I would consider financial or legal limitations on gun ownership. He defines these opinions as unacceptable failures of Team D.

Therefore there is no “reasonable” discussion we can have.

I did not think I was asking for so much.

In this thread, I'm asking that we apply the Bill of Rights to modern technology. Is that such an unreasonable request?

In other threads, I've asked that we acknowledge that militias operate outdoors and that Donald Trump's abuse of power not be tolerated.

We don't have to agree on everything, but it would be nice if we could at least find a few points of agreement. Those don't seem unreasonable to me. In light of Gouv's post, I'd also ask that we agree that "arms" means, among other things, firearms.

So tell me, what could or should exist if I were to agree that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech, that militias operated indoors, and that Trump's abuse of power is OK if he's being gungrabby?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
I don't think any army is issuing tasers to front line troops, so not needed for militias, therefore, not covered under the 2A.

U.S. Military Deploys Tasers


A 2004 article. Maybe things happen in the world without you being aware of them.

I'm glad we can agree that suitable militia weapons like battlefield .22's, stun guns, and AR15's should be the most protected, but lesser weapons are still useful for self defense, which is why SCOTUS unanimously said that stun guns are protected.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
My problem with Tom is that he wants to have a “reasonable discussion” predicated on universal acceptance of his parameters and according to definitions created by a court captured by special interests and industry.
This is the group that said that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech:

I'm interested in which "special interests" captured them and caused them to vote that way, and why you think that happened?

Particularly with respect to Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg, why do you think they are captured by special interests? Which ones? What do oil companies have to do with any of it? And why do these special interests want the Bill of Rights to apply to modern tech? Who opposes these special interests? Do you?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
Just reading an article in ProPublica ProP about a woman dedicated to helping illiterates to vote. She's also helping folks who apparently cannot fill out simple forms correctly to register and whatnot.

I realize 110% that this is a liberal bastion of sanity and intellect so I ask ... humbly AF ... why would we want these people to vote?

Why would we want them to own guns?

As I explained in the other thread,

you're asking about the wrong right. I think you might be able to find one on which the people here would accept any limitation, no matter how absurd. Look real hard. The answer might just... ahem... stun you.

Now do that CLEAN thing where you pretend you can't figure out what I'm talking about instead of addressing my point.
 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,150
2,597
Outer Banks
Then as now i suggest again you spell it out. Atm i have a rack of ribs and an icy cold beverage, your genius will have to wait.

Until ya spell it out.

or not. We all know how your posts end, we just want to know when.
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,194
5,442
De Nile
I did not think I was asking for so much.

In this thread, I'm asking that we apply the Bill of Rights to modern technology. Is that such an unreasonable request?

In other threads, I've asked that we acknowledge that militias operate outdoors and that Donald Trump's abuse of power not be tolerated.

We don't have to agree on everything, but it would be nice if we could at least find a few points of agreement. Those don't seem unreasonable to me. In light of Gouv's post, I'd also ask that we agree that "arms" means, among other things, firearms.

So tell me, what could or should exist if I were to agree that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech, that militias operated indoors, and that Trump's abuse of power is OK if he's being gungrabby?
maybe a dictionary could help out our resident pedant?





arms
/ärmz/
See definitions in:
All

Military

Heraldry

Biology

Clothing

Sport

Mathematics

Finance
noun

  1. 1.
    weapons and ammunition; armaments.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,000
1,857
Punta Gorda FL
Then as now i suggest again you spell it out. Atm i have a rack of ribs and an icy cold beverage, your genius will have to wait.

Until ya spell it out.

or not. We all know how your posts end, we just want to know when.
Well, OK, I'll give away the big surprise.

The right on which the people here would accept any limitation, no matter how absurd, is the right to keep and bear arms.

For example, they won't object to limiting the Bill of Rights to 18th century technology, as shown in this thread. The absurdity would be evident if we suddenly told them that TV and radio are not covered by the 1st amendment, which is why none will answer my question on that subject. It's OK. Questions to which the answers are obvious, but which can't be answered because the answer wrecks a Team narrative, are my favorite kind.

Another example would be the fact that I'm the only Obama fan here in the bump stocka thread. I doubt anyone on this forum trusts Trump's judgement on executive power over Obama's but they're perfectly willing to accept it if the result is gungrabby. Of all the things I would think would be most objectionable, Trump's abuse of power should top the list. But no. Not if he's doing something gungrabby. No gungrabby policy or advocate can be denounced by anyone in the TeamD/gungrabby chorus.

If I'm wrong about that, quote an example. I've never seen one. That's why I refer to this as a tribal taboo.
 

Latest posts




Top