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: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:23PM
You can't gather any number of free people together to justify the group's decision to kidnap and enslave a victim human; neither can the US government justly exceed its originating authority which was that of one single individual among a group that voted to send representatives to the Constitutional Convention.
That's perhaps not the best example to cite. Quite a few of those folks did plenty of enslaving under the aegis of law. It's all well and good to put The Constitution up on a pedestal now that we have something like universal suffrage, but that's been there for a minority of our history.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:51PM
The Constitution's predecessors were (perhaps wisely) silent on the matter of human slavery, while the Declaration was quite clear that ALL men (and, yes, women) are created equal and with certain unalienable rights, including life. (A right to life absolutely requires exclusive ownership of a human body by its lone inhabitant.) Slavery was a reality in the colonies/nation (and world) at the time.
You'll note I'm not holding up the US Constitution as some sort of perfect law; I am in fact attacking several pieces of it (e.g. 16th Amendment) by pointing out the historical details of its creation, specifically that its authority ultimately rests upon that of a single individual human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:40AM
A right to life absolutely requires exclusive ownership of a human body by its lone inhabitant.)
Speak for yourself, please, about that "lone" part! _Me
_the other Me