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 BasilBrush on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:21PM
The idea was this. You spoke up about someone. They could then hold what religion you were, pick you up with no warrant, search your house and 'find a gun' (because everyone had them anyway), suddenly you were a subversive, and they could torture whatever confession they wanted out of you, then lock you up and maybe in a few years get around to a trial that convicted you anyway because of your confession.
Nowadays of course that treatment is reserved for Middle Eastern gentlemen.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:26PM
*eyeroll*
... AND those people who like/have [networkworld.com]:
Criminal activity by government actors is not just about [insert your pet social-justice issue/minority/news event here].
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:04PM
Those eyes aren't rolling, they're popping out of your head.
This:
"they could torture whatever confession they wanted out of you, then lock you up and maybe in a few years get around to a trial that convicted you anyway because of your confession."
Applies to extraordinary rendition from Iraq and Afghanistan. It does NOT apply to domestic libertarian loons suspected of being potential terrorists.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:19PM
Extraordinary rendition wasn't mentioned; why bother with all the work to transport someone when you can violate them right here at home? My reply does not contradict your claim that "Middle Eastern gentlemen" have been subject to criminal actions by US government agents; it instead opens the door to reveal more of the wide array of victims. People from every single walk of life have been victimized by US government criminality; the point to be made about what I perceived to be an attempt to make such rampant criminality a rallying point around a single racial minority is that doing so takes something everyone should be interested in and makes it a divisive wedge issue.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:06PM
Extraordinary rendition wasn't mentioned
"they could torture whatever confession they wanted out of you, then lock you up and maybe in a few years get around to a trial that convicted you anyway because of your confession." was.
an attempt to make such rampant criminality a rallying point around a single racial minority is that doing so takes something everyone should be interested in and makes it a divisive wedge issue.
It doesn't happen in the US mainland. It happens supposedly outside the reach of the US legal system, in Cuba. To gentlemen from the Middle East.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:23PM
"Extraordinary rendition" is a specific term that has a specific meaning: agents of one country's government seize a person and transport them to a different country where rights violations are easier to get away with. All the quoted text above can be accomplished with or without extraordinary rendition... and has.
A few examples of varying completeness that come immediately to mind:
Al-Marri [hotair.com]
Bradley Chelsea Manning [thedailybeast.com]
Jose Padilla [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:07PM
You seem to be concentrating on the term "extraordinary rendition", which I dare say everybody here understands perfectly, whilst missing the word "torture".
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:24AM
I have been focused on that term because you kept bringing it up like it was the ultimate qualifier to the world's most horrific crime. (It is horrific.) Torture can and has been performed without extraordinary rendition, and at the very least, all individuals I mentioned have been kept in solitary confinement for very long periods of time (up to six years, I believe).
You might try to define "torture" narrowly to only include things such as breaking on a wheel, spinning on a Judas chair, or having a car battery hanging off your testicles, but I'm quite certain you'd not appreciate being waterboarded (the US executed Japanese soldiers for using this "water torture") or locked away in a tiny box from all human contact for years.