SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decision says ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stungunMA-ruling.pdf ) (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:15PM
The militia, according to us law and tradition, is every man old enough to fight. So, no, that is not an unintended consequence. It is very much an intended consequence. To poorly quote some Japanese general or other, "We cannot invade the United states, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:40PM
So, in other words, the "militia" is everyone registered for selective service (the draft), which means only men meet the requirement of the 2nd's "A well regulated militia" clause, which means women are not constitutionally allowed to own or carry firearms.
The 2nd needs to be amended to remove the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" clause so that it just says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The people who claim thats what it says already are by definition cherrypicking which parts they think should apply and which shouldn't.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:40PM
So, in other words, the "militia" is everyone registered for selective service (the draft)
The selective service didn't even exist at the time. Private individuals owned weapons from the beginning of the country, draft or no draft. Your interpretation ignores historical documents, as well as long legal precedent that has long held that the 2nd amendment guarantees private individuals the right to own firearms (precedents which correctly take into account historical document). You instead choose to focus on wording, using a modern understanding of the language. That's a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:58PM
Which is exactly why it should be amended, so that the wording can't be used to justify different interpretations in the future. Although the specific wording is already used to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, etc, because they didn't exist at the time it was written. So either the spirit applies or the wording does, choose one; you cannot say the spirit applies for the 2nd but the wording applies for the 4th and other amendments, which is what we have going on now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:42PM
Which is exactly why it should be amended, so that the wording can't be used to justify different interpretations in the future.
And then language will change and people will misinterpret it again. Then we'll need another amendment, which will take a long time.
you cannot say the spirit applies for the 2nd but the wording applies for the 4th and other amendments
I don't say that. The government violates the 4th amendment with mass surveillance, etc. The spirit applies to both.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:19PM
Which is the entire point of having the Constitutional Amendment process in the first place, to update the Constitution when necessary due to changes in times or meanings of words.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:28PM
Not really. I know it excludes women. I however am not a woman and thus it is not my problem.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:48PM
If it wasn't already well known that you were a sociopath, it would certainly be clear now. Worse still, anyone who fights for equal rights for all gets derided and attacked as an "SJW". Not doing anything about it personally is fine, but actively attacking people who want to do anything about it makes you the same as bigots.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:52PM
Sweet cheeks, I have no problem with equal rights but SJWs never ask for Equal, they demand Special and call anyone who disagrees a sociopath. Well, we're not sociopaths. See, normal human beings care to a diminishing degree about family, friends, their town, their state, their nation, and the rest of the world. SJWs care in the reverse order to a degree so irrational that they see equality as oppression and become absolutely maddened when the world doesn't agree with them. Tell me again, who has mental issues here?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:34PM
A few extremist nutjobs having mental issues doesn't mean you don't. If anything, so-called "SJW"s are a response to your brand of extremism since people like you have been around for far longer. And don't act like other people's bad actions somehow absolve you of your own - they don't. The correct counter to extremism and hatred is not more extremism and hatred.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:39AM
Nothing wrong with my actions, spanky. I stand by every word I've said. And if you really think my views are extreme, you should get out more. The only things I'm extreme about are equality and liberty. If you're not extreme about those, you really should ask yourself why you aren't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:10AM
lol
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:52PM
You COMPLETELY overlook the US Constitution's purpose, and take Buzzard's lack of personal concern over women being included in the militia , and assume that the purpose of the US Constitution is to tell We the People what we may or may not do.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
If a woman wants to own a bazooka, all she has to do do to lawfully acquire one is head down to True Value Hardware And Bazookas and pay for one. (All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void; all laws restricting or forbidding the keeping or carrying of any type of arms are completely null and void [findlaw.com].)