Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,561
1,730
Punta Gorda FL
Because this post seems to equate reasonable regulation with the confiscation I was talking about in the post to which you replied.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.
The supremes have found reasonable regulation is fine. Cry me a river
i do not equate reasonable regulation with confiscation of ALL guns. Reasonable regulation might equate with making certain guns or gun parts illegal to own.

No sidewinder missiles for you!
Billy has an ordinary rifle, not an air to air missile.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,561
1,730
Punta Gorda FL
did they confiscate his rifle? no? huh.
Not yet, but the registry is closed so his heirs can't inherit it and he can't sell it within the state. If he dies owning it, it will be confiscated.

I don't think giving up any future ownership of ordinary rifles is "reasonable regulation" and don't just dismiss future confiscations as you do.

I know, I know, I'm a nutter so my opinion on that is unreasonable. How about this opinion on the same subject?

...

The stupidity over "assault" rifles and all that nonsense over flash suppressors, "clip" size (yeah, I know they're magazines), is all stupid, misdirected bullshit. I've said it before and I will say that again.

...

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,977
4,978
De Nile
did they confiscate his rifle? no? huh.
Not yet, but the registry is closed so his heirs can't inherit it and he can't sell it within the state. If he dies owning it, it will be confiscated.

I don't think giving up any future ownership of ordinary rifles is "reasonable regulation" and don't just dismiss future confiscations as you do.

I know, I know, I'm a nutter so my opinion on that is unreasonable. How about this opinion on the same subject?

...

The stupidity over "assault" rifles and all that nonsense over flash suppressors, "clip" size (yeah, I know they're magazines), is all stupid, misdirected bullshit. I've said it before and I will say that again.

...
you should ask the author.

I don't share your concern over a piece of steel. If guns are your only legacy for your kids, well, sucks to be them I guess.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,561
1,730
Punta Gorda FL
I don't share your concern over a piece of steel. If guns are your only legacy for your kids, well, sucks to be them I guess.
Do you think it is reasonable that guns can't be part of Billy's legacy?

I think it sucks to be him in that way. I also think it's unreasonable. I doubt his kids are any more likely than he is to commit any crimes with his rifle.

If there's a reason for preemptively taking it from them, what is it? Lacking one, I find it unreasonable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,977
4,978
De Nile
I don't share your concern over a piece of steel. If guns are your only legacy for your kids, well, sucks to be them I guess.
Do you think it is reasonable that guns can't be part of Billy's legacy?

I think it sucks to be him in that way. I also think it's unreasonable. I doubt his kids are any more likely than he is to commit any crimes with his rifle.

If there's a reason for preemptively taking it from them, what is it? Lacking one, I find it unreasonable.
wow, you have an opinion.

congratulations.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Because this post seems to equate reasonable regulation with the confiscation I was talking about in the post to which you replied.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.
The supremes have found reasonable regulation is fine. Cry me a river
i do not equate reasonable regulation with confiscation of ALL guns. Reasonable regulation might equate with making certain guns or gun parts illegal to own.

No sidewinder missiles for you!
Last I checked, Sidewinder missiles are not guns.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,977
4,978
De Nile
I don't have one, and since I'm not advocating confiscation, not sure why you're asking me. I'm just pointing out the supremes have said local regs are fine within reason.

 
G

Guest

Guest
I don't have one, and since I'm not advocating confiscation, not sure why you're asking me. I'm just pointing out the supremes have said local regs are fine within reason.
But you mentioned that confiscation and bans might be part of "reasonable" regulations. And you further have tiptoed a fine line and said that "reasonable regulations" do not equate to confiscation of ALL guns. So I'm asking if you think its reasonable to confiscate some guns and if so what might they be.

My sense from reading your body of work is that you don't advocate for the confiscation of ALL guns. But I believe you do think it acceptable to confiscate SOME guns. If that is wrong, I stand corrected. If its true, I'm just trying to understand what guns or class of guns might be eligible for confiscation in your mind.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Hey Jeffie, back to the original question, do you have a constitutional right to a pellet gun?
When was this ever a question? I don't recall anyone asking anything about pellet guns.

And why are you avoiding mine. But tells ya what, I'm in a good mood today so I'll answer your's if you answer mine.

I do not believe there is a constitutional right to a pellet gun. I think it would be a poor self-defense weapon and I think it probably would not be terribly effective for use in militia service. The SCOTUSMMV

OK, your turn......

 
Last edited:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,977
4,978
De Nile
its hard to keep all the gun threads separated.

I have no proposal to confiscate any guns. Hell, guns mostly kill other gun owners, (suicide, gang bangers, family members) the only issue I have is mentally ill folks having easy access.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

USA190520

Super Anarchist
so discriminate against those that have an illness?

How'd he die?

He was attacked in his home and killed, poor guy suffered depression some years ago and was prohibited from owning a gun-

Slippery slope- some here equate the simple act if owning a gun with mental illness- so what're gonna do?

I get your point- it's valid but it's got flaws too-

What if a normal guy who's never broken s law in his life buys a gun- fine- tgen one day he falls into depression- how do you legislate that?

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,977
4,978
De Nile
so discriminate against those that have an illness?

How'd he die?

He was attacked in his home and killed, poor guy suffered depression some years ago and was prohibited from owning a gun-

Slippery slope- some here equate the simple act if owning a gun with mental illness- so what're gonna do?

I get your point- it's valid but it's got flaws too-

What if a normal guy who's never broken s law in his life buys a gun- fine- tgen one day he falls into depression- how do you legislate that?
You cannot legislate all things.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,561
1,730
Punta Gorda FL
Hey Jeffie, back to the original question, do you have a constitutional right to a pellet gun?
I thought the original question was whether stun guns are dangerous and unusual weapons that should be banned for public safety reasons and because they were not invented in 1789.

Yup, just checked the topic post and I was right.

As for pellet guns, I'd answer yes to your question if you're talking about air rifles. Some of them are more powerful than small rifles. I have an old Beeman R-10 in .20 cal. It's mostly used for squirrels but those who handle it must obey the four rules of safety just like with any of my regular firearms. It's potentially lethal and I'm more accurate with it than any of my regular guns.

How would you answer your own question?

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,977
4,978
De Nile
Nope. Just cause something is dangerous doesn't make it protected. Check into slingshots and potato canons

 
Top