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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:46PM
So what you're saying is that a militia must be directly under the control and guidance of the government to be a "valid" "well regulated" militia, since you're saying its the government's fault the unorganized militia remains unorganized, which means you're saying "well regulated militia" means "official government militia". I disagree with you there, the militia does not necessarily need to be an official governmental entity, but only needs the government's 'blessing' and must actually have regulations and training, which is the commander's responsibility to organize and enforce not the governments.
At any rate your statement makes it clear we agree that a bunch of Joe Sixpacks with shotguns is not a "well regulated militia".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:55PM
I can entertain the correctness that the official, well-regulated militia of nothing but willing volunteers spoken of operates under the command structure of government and that Joe Sixpacks and shotguns is not necessarily a well-regulated militia.
However, none of that changes the fact that the US Constitution was created at the Philadelphia Convention and rested ultimately upon the delegated authority of the single individual American human, of which many voted to elect representatives to the Convention and yet none of which could give any one of themselves nor any subsequent creation of law more authority than any one of them individually had.
If Joe Sixpack wants a bazooka to go with his shotgun, the Constitution has no authority to deny him one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:58PM
Except for that whole pesky "well regulated militia" clause. It needs to be amended to remove that clause and then I'll agree 100%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:08AM
You sure do like to ignore the parts of posts that destroy your argument. I let it slide the first time, but not this time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:23AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law [wikipedia.org]
It has already been decided for us that the letter of the law has priority over spirit, so pointing out that the spirit conflicts with the letter means either the letter needs to be changed or that all laws need to be interpreted by spirit instead. The former, amending and updating laws and amendments to better encapsulate the spirit, is actually possible while the latter I'm not so sure about.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:42AM
... or we can act like free people and remind government agents of what they have ignored or forgotten: a law repugnant to the Constitution is void. Government agents initiating force against others under color of a void law are literal criminals. If idiots in black robes say something stupid [wikipedia.org], that doesn't make it so.
Resisting such criminal government actors has already happened in Tennessee [jpfo.org] and throughout the South [wikipedia.org], and is happening today in New York [dcclothesline.com], Connecticut [americanthinker.com], Nevada [youtube.com], Washington [patrickhenrysociety.com], and elsewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:15AM
All of those are for the 2nd, where are similar marches and protests for our lost 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, and 14th amendment rights? If the "second amendment is what protects the other amendments", why do we continue losing them and why does nobody care that they're gone? Those are anything but "resisting such criminal government actors" or "remind[ing] government agents of what they have ignored or forgotten". The constitution is far more than just the second amendment; the second will be meaningless when the entire constitution is rendered void, which is exactly where we're headed when nobody cares about anything but a single sentence in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:31AM
I can only assume you are resorting to desperate misdirection. This story and thread deal with arms and individuals (inside and/or outside of militias). If you had bothered to take the time to actually read my replies to you, you would have read...
... that the underlying principles I wrote about apply to the entire width and breadth of the US Constitution, and address the lawlessness of government agents' conduct with all the amendments you just mentioned. And, no, the principles espoused in the Second Amendment will never be meaningless, as evidenced by the multitude of links previously posted, several of which document armed individuals successfully resisting the criminal conduct of government agents, conduct that covers violations beyond just the Second Amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:54AM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:59AM
Read, you idiot [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:09AM
Allow me to say this too: I am all for interpreting the constitution by the spirit rather than letter, that would be far preferable since then encryption codes for your computer would be covered by the 5th, the internet and email would be covered by the 4th (thankfully SCOTUS agreed that phones are covered, but nothing else yet), the NSA's obvious spying on citizens along with the DEA and TSA would be immediately shut down, "free speech zones" / "constitution-free zones" and using the government to enforce religious laws would never fly, etc. Unfortunately for us, laws and the constitution depend on the letter rather than the spirit (unless and until it gets before the SCOTUS, which isn't even a power granted to them by the constitution), so the letter takes priority over the spirit. Either this needs to be changed or the wording needs to be changed. Since I don't think we'll ever get lucky enough to get the spirit to take precedence over the letter, its our responsibility to ensure the letter is as clear as possible in describing whats intended by the spirit.