Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,248
5,468
De Nile
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.
define "arms"
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
define "arms"
Why? Scalia did a pretty good job in the Heller opinion.

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter
pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dic
tionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinaf
ter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that
were not specifically designed for military use and were
not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cun
ningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on
Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An
Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6,
p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104
(J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke,
42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts
construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler,
The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in
the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

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

As mentioned, I think the topic argument goes well over that border and into "frivolous" territory.

Do you think that the Bill of Rights applies to technology developed after it was written?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
So how do I get automatic weapons and MANPADS such as we are talking about making a difference in Ukraine, Most of the fighting seems to occur beyond the range of a three inch barrel.
Automatic weapons require a simple, three step process:

1. Be rich.
2. Pay the tax.
3. Pass the background check.

The first step is important because Saint Ronald closed the machine gun registry in 1986 so the supply is kinda constricted.

As for MANPADS, those seem dangerous and unusual to me, and not the sorts of things people would have in our homes for ordinary, lawful purposes.

But there is kind of a threshold question: do you think that the Bill of Rights applies to technology that was developed since it was written?
 

Lark

Supper Anarchist
9,471
1,685
Ohio
Automatic weapons require a simple, three step process:

1. Be rich.
2. Pay the tax.
3. Pass the background check.

The first step is important because Saint Ronald closed the machine gun registry in 1986 so the supply is kinda constricted.

As for MANPADS, those seem dangerous and unusual to me, and not the sorts of things people would have in our homes for ordinary, lawful purposes.

But there is kind of a threshold question: do you think that the Bill of Rights applies to technology that was developed since it was written?
The 2A is for militias and defense against invaders (those scary countries with militaries larger than our own.... well, maybe aliens from space will show up using faster than light technology but are somehow vulnerable to semi auto projectile weapons. Thus, we need to be allowed proper military weapons. We restrict automatic weapons, claymores, shaped charges, suicide drones, etc. We can agree a concealable pistol is not suited for infantry use at 25-250m. A military style rifle limited to semi auto fire is better but has been held as obsolete by every army in the world for the last half century or more. I base these statements not on idiot politicians and their pet zealots in our courts, but rather on my understanding of the English language, my actually reading the document in question, my having sufficient attention span to read a full sentence as well as the body of the document describing the regulation of militias and even some understanding of warfare as a student of history. If legitimate infantry weapons needed by a citizen militia can be regulated or banned, weapons better suited for road rage incidents or school massacres then warfare are not above regulation by state or local government.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
The 2A is for militias and defense against invaders (those scary countries with militaries larger than our own.... well, maybe aliens from space will show up using faster than light technology but are somehow vulnerable to semi auto projectile weapons. Thus, we need to be allowed proper military weapons. We restrict automatic weapons, claymores, shaped charges, suicide drones, etc.
Sounds like you're agreeing with the US Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech, contrary to what the Massachusetts court found. That's a start.

As I mentioned, automatics are restricted to the rich. I can't think of another right so restricted. Can you? What makes rich people safer?

Those other things are dangerous and unusual, as mentioned.
We can agree a concealable pistol is not suited for infantry use at 25-250m.
Seems to work to stop a nincomcoup, though.
A military style rifle limited to semi auto fire is better but has been held as obsolete by every army in the world for the last half century or more.
Well, no, the IDF uses battlefield .22's. I learned it here.

Did you tell them that the Israeli Army uses them for sniper weapons?

8.jpg


Operator armed with the Ruger 10/22 Suppressed sniper rifle during the Israeli-Palestinian clashes in the Occupied Territories, October 2000. Note that the sniper has a Sig Sauer handgun tacked in his vest.
And they carry handguns too. Yes, and stun guns, as noted above.

I disagree with restricting suitable militia weapons to the rich and disagree with your obviously false characterization of battlefield .22's as weapons not suited for combat. The whole reason for banning "assault" weapons is that they're "weapons of war" right? Are you saying that basic reason is basically bullshit?
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
So much white noise around here. Dogballs galore.



The Koch Brothers. The Federalist Society. Dark Money dominating the Supreme Court. Dangerous and unusual?
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Why? Scalia did a pretty good job (addressing the "keeping and bearing of arms") in the Heller opinion.
Wrong, Tom. Dead wrong, in fact. What a poser.

In Heller, Scalia accepted the amicus advice of a paid NRA shill named Crayton Cramer, who has been since been dis-proven by modern computerized search technology. Yo, Scalia liked originalism, yet the peer-reviewed work of Kozukanich has demonstrated a 97% military use of the term "to keep and bear arms" in the days f the fuding fathers. Said scholar search-functioned all documents and periodicals of the day.

The second amendment had a military context, and a military application...while being central and effective in the matter of slave control.
 

bpm57

Super Anarchist
2,624
60
New Jersey
Said scholar search-functioned all documents and periodicals of the day.

All of them? Or just all the ones that got scanned into a computer somewhere? "All" the ones that managed to survive until now anyway - which is unlikely to really be "all" of the documents.

Speaking of "all", Joe, is "97%" "all", or less then "all"?

Not sure why I bother, you are the same person who spent months thinking that the Shay and Whiskey rebellions were the same thing.

I'm sure you are still confused about a war that went on between the 13 colonies and GB as well.

Speaking of shills, you realize that kozuskanich is just another loyal lapdog of Saul Cornell, right?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
Nah, the biggest fraud, I repeat fraud because non-readers might have missed it again, is the idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern technology.

That's why none have appeared in this thread to defend the grabbers' victory in the Massachusetts Supreme Court on that point. They all know it's an absurd and indefensible fraud. But it's a gungrabby one, so they can't say anything bad about it either.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
So much white noise around here. Dogballs galore.



The Koch Brothers. The Federalist Society. Dark Money dominating the Supreme Court. Dangerous and unusual?
The topic case was decided unanimously.

I don't think it's because of any of your bogeymen. I think it's because the central argument saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech is absurd. This one:

Caetano.jpg


But when I ask about it, I just get name calling like this:

You aren't worth the effort.

I blocked you for a reason, Sea Lion Tom.

I think it's because you all know that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech but you can't say anything bad about anything gungrabby because TeamD. If I'm wrong, what is the reason?
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Do we have a Sea Lion here? Yes, IMO. @Pertinacious Tom .


If I ever want cheap, transparent, insincere propaganda in the morning, I can always find wonder in the daily bits from Tom Dogballs Ray.


Well, I owe it to myself to engage in better reading material than that. You are a self-serving waste of time, Tom. I can find vibrant authors who display a capacity to grow right along with this people's democracy.

I find that you are a dead-end, sir, made up of disjointed CATO bits.
 
Last edited:

Not My Real Name

Not Actually Me
43,039
2,823
The topic case was decided unanimously.

I don't think it's because of any of your bogeymen. I think it's because the central argument saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech is absurd. This one:

Caetano.jpg


But when I ask about it, I just get name calling like this:



I think it's because you all know that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech but you can't say anything bad about anything gungrabby because TeamD. If I'm wrong, what is the reason?

This is why put you on ignore, you disingenuous, sealioning shithead.

If I wanted to be in your stupid stun gun discussion, or ANY of your dumb gun discussions, I'd tag myself in.

So instead, you drag some other out of context thing and tag me into a thread I have no interest in.

Why would you do such a stupid, annoying thing? I've literally not spoken to you in years.

I'll leave you off ignore long enough to make sure you see this, then you can fuck right off back to never-never land with the rest of the trolls and loons.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
So instead, you drag some other out of context thing and tag me into a thread I have no interest in.

Why would you do such a stupid, annoying thing? I've literally not spoken to you in years.
In a more fact-based reality, your reply to me that I quoted was from a few months ago. Anyone can click on the link back and verify this, but no one will call out your bullshit for the same reason you can't comment on what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did: TeamD.

That reply was to me asking the topic question in this thread. It was out of context in the other thread. The one where you replied to me a few months ago. As opposed to the dystopian thread where you replied to me a couple of days ago.

It's really weird to me that grabbers like you and LB15 just deny making posts after I've linked to them and everyone can see them. They're really there, at least in a fact based world. The grabber world is bizarre because of the lack of any factual basis.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,041
1,879
Punta Gorda FL
Do we have a Sea Lion here? Yes, IMO. @Pertinacious Tom .


If I ever want cheap, transparent, insincere propaganda in the morning, I can always find wonder in the daily bits from Tom Dogballs Ray.


Well, I owe it to myself to engage in better reading material than that. You are a self-serving waste of time, Tom. I can find vibrant authors who display a capacity to grow right along with this people's democracy.

I find that you are a dead-end, sir, made up of disjointed CATO bits.
The whole Supreme Court said this in rejecting Massachusetts' idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech:

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." 554 U.S., at 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

And the problem there is...

same as it always is...

Tom's a bad messenger!!!

Which doesn't really explain how the whole court agrees with me and disagrees with TeamD/grabbers.
 




Top