Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
Likely not, but they'll take more HIMARS (and lots of other actual useful equipment needed when overthrowing an invading force)
Those seem dangerous and unusual and not the sorts of things that The People might have at home for ordinary, lawful purposes.

They also seem modern, which again raises the question:

Do you agree with the US Supreme Court or the Massachusetts Supreme Court on whether the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
what's the solution proposed by the "second amendment means i can buy any weapon i want" crowd?

as an aside, if they really mean "any weapon i want" then where's my thermonuclear weapon that i must have to protect me?
Hah! No one has ever said "any weapon I want" which is why you're talking to yourself and not quoting an actual person.

What we actually say is that the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology.

This would not be controversial with any other amendment. No one questions whether the fourth or first apply to modern tech. But the question of whether the second does reached our Supreme Court.

What do you think? Did our founders write a bunch of amendments that were meant to apply to new technology and one that was not? Does that really make sense?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
i didn't see a single solution in your little screed. do you have any or just more obfuscation?
Finding common ground would be a good start.

I'll go first. I agree that thermonuclear weapons are dangerous and unusual and not the sorts of things that The People would have around the house for ordinary, lawful purposes. Nor are they like battlefield .22's, the sorts of weapons we'd be expected to bring if called for militia service.

Now your turn. Do you think all of our Bill of Rights applies to modern technology, or all but one amendment?
 

tybee

Anarchist
855
260
around the bend
the beginning of this discussion concerned assault weapons in the hands of the average republican trump voter who feels cheated, wants revenge and takes it out on school children.

so you have no solution much less solutions.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
the beginning of this discussion concerned assault weapons in the hands of the average republican trump voter who feels cheated, wants revenge and takes it out on school children.

so you have no solution much less solutions.
Well, if the only legal guns were 18th century ones, the people you fear would be a lot less dangerous, no?

So I assume you agree with the Supreme Court of Massachusetts that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech?
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,100
5,838
De Nile
Well, if the only legal guns were 18th century ones, the people you fear would be a lot less dangerous, no?

So I assume you agree with the Supreme Court of Massachusetts that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech?
It seems the Supremes state Abortion is not a right, because it wasn't a right in colonial America (of course, it wasn't forbidden or anything, it was just medical care, such as they had) - so - you tell me? Do our rights evolve with time, or do they not? The Supremes seem schitzophrenic on this.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
depends. are we talking hand held or artillery?

please point me to a cite where such a decision was made.
At Lexington and Concord, the fights were over cannon. So let's start with those.

As for your cite request, I can see that you're not only a non-reader, but don't even look at the pictures in posts. Like this one, showing that the idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to things invented after ratification is not just some obscure point. It's argument 1A. Their MAIN argument.

You would have heard about this before if we were talking about a right that TeamD wants to protect, not undermine.

Caetano.jpg
 

tybee

Anarchist
855
260
around the bend
when i mentioned you providing a "cite", i certainly did not mean the definition where you'd present yourself as the authority on the subject at hand.
since your little "documentation" has some vague and probably false claims and i refuse to wander through 28 pages of your specious arguments, either prove your claims or wander back into the palmetto scrub and fondle your dogs' balls.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
when i mentioned you providing a "cite", i certainly did not mean the definition where you'd present yourself as the authority on the subject at hand.
since your little "documentation" has some vague and probably false claims and i refuse to wander through 28 pages of your specious arguments, either prove your claims or wander back into the palmetto scrub and fondle your dogs' balls.

Caetano v Massachusetts

That's the case page where the US Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

To see the argument that I posted, you want to look at

Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.

That's where Massachusetts made their case.

And, as I said, if you look at their main argument, specifically argument 1 A (the one I helpfully circled above), you can see the cite in its home environment.

I don't know what you thought was a "definition" above, nor why you thought I was presenting myself as an expert. I'm just someone who read the case documents in the thread topic case. And now I've spent years spoon feeding them to people like yourself.
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,100
5,838
De Nile
Caetano v Massachusetts

That's the case page where the US Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

To see the argument that I posted, you want to look at

Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.

That's where Massachusetts made their case.

And, as I said, if you look at their main argument, specifically argument 1 A (the one I helpfully circled above), you can see the cite in its home environment.

I don't know what you thought was a "definition" above, nor why you thought I was presenting myself as an expert. I'm just someone who read the case documents in the thread topic case. And now I've spent years spoon feeding them to people like yourself.
You seem very happy with Supreme duplicity in overturning Mass but tossing out RvW because, wait for it, abortion wasn’t protected at the founding. Of course, it wasn’t illegal either, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the Federalists…. As long as they get their way, hypocrisy is just fine.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
You seem very happy with Supreme duplicity in overturning Mass but tossing out RvW because, wait for it, abortion wasn’t protected at the founding. Of course, it wasn’t illegal either, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the Federalists…. As long as they get their way, hypocrisy is just fine.
So do you think the Bill of Rights applies to technology invented after it was ratified?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
since your little "documentation" has some vague and probably false claims and i refuse to wander through 28 pages of your specious arguments
What's vague?

What's probably false?

And what's specious?

I politely answered your question about private ownership of nukes, even though no one on the gun rights side has ever said anything remotely as ridiculous as you asked.

Now I'm just asking about a position that WON in a state supreme court and went to the US Supreme Court. Not some made up bullshit that no one ever advocated like you brought. A real position that I've documented. Now go ahead and don't answer the questions in this post because you can't.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,875
2,008
Punta Gorda FL
i'd suggest you take your post line by line and look closely at definitions and historical records. Perhaps you'll learn something?

Hah! No one has ever said "any weapon I want" which is why you're talking to yourself and not quoting an actual person.

What we actually say is that the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology.

This would not be controversial with any other amendment. No one questions whether the fourth or first apply to modern tech. But the question of whether the second does reached our Supreme Court.

What do you think? Did our founders write a bunch of amendments that were meant to apply to new technology and one that was not? Does that really make sense?

I assume you mean this one? OK.

With respect to the first line, including the "hah," I haven't seen any historical records where anyone said that private citizens can have nukes.

The Bill of Rights is defined as the first ten amendments. Amendments like number 1 and number 4 have been applied to modern technology like radio and TV and the internet in the case of amendment 1 and GPS in the case of amendment 4.

I really don't need any definitions or historical records to know that no one from TeamD has said anything bad about any gun control advocate or policy, so the next couple of lines don't seem relevant to your request.

The last couple are only questions to you.

So all I learned is that you're like Clean and just want to evade the thead topic question since actually answering it is so embarassing.

Still, I'll try one more time.

Do you think that the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology or not?
 




Top