DescentBB

SCOTUS has vacated a ruling by the Mass supreme court that it is illegal to carry a stun gun. So it seems that SCOTUS is still functional and still believes in the 2nd Amend. Now what I found interesting was the specious argument by the State of Mass that:

The state supreme court upheld her conviction, ruling that Tasers were not the kind of weapons the founders meant the Second Amendment to cover.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sup ... rs-n542566

So even a evenly divided US Supreme Court didn't buy into the argument that weapons not foreseen by the writers of the 2nd Amend. are allowed to be banned. The precedent rulings just keep making it harder for the Bradey Bunch to get laws passed to take away our firearms.

I'll even agree......arms are arms. Seems no real parsing, there. Then we get to the matter of restriction to military intent and usage.

Yes slick, we can all agree a joe blow average citizen has no right to own a nuclear tipped cruise missile.

If I was going to carry something for protection, it wouldn't be a stun gun. They have a spotty record of doing the job adequately.

woodchip wrote:Yes slick, we can all agree a joe blow average citizen has no right to own a nuclear tipped cruise missile.

right, and then we work our way down the list from there, right?

And no doubt, you would stop higher on the list than I would.

tc...Stun guns actually scare me more than regular guns, due to my health issues.