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 Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:16AM
Yeah, totally squirming by pointing out that words have meanings and making up definitions for words as you see fit in order to support your argument is not a valid method for supporting an argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:51AM
You tell me: can the keeping and bearing of arms of a well-regulated militia be infringed?
Hurr durr, gee, a restriction on the exercise of a right? That's not an infringement, no, no! Hurr durr. You sure you want to keep acting this brainless? I'd much prefer an honest discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:24AM
Yup, restrictions on rights have been ruled perfectly valid by SCOTUS. See "Free speech zones, [wikipedia.org] "Constitution-free zones", [aclu.org] etc, which nobody seems to be protesting, so it seems citizens have accepted restrictions on rights as perfectly valid. The brainless and dishonest one in this discussion is the one intentionally ignoring the legal framework already in place that allows exactly that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:39AM
Your precious collection of blackrobes has also stated that black people aren't human [wikipedia.org]. Are you sure you want to hold them out as the ultimate arbiters of reality?
Once again, as recognized - but not established - by your precious blackrobes, " a law repugnant to the Constitution is void [cornell.edu] "; " an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed [findlaw.com] ".
If you bother to read the Norton decision linked above, you will note that the blackrobes' argument was that the illegal law was void upon its passage - it was not made void at a later time when the blackrobes gave their ruling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:52AM
Strawmen and ad hominems are how idiots admit they can't support their argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:07AM
"Strawmen" involves setting up an unrelated point to attack; YOU brought up the SCOTUS.
Ad hominem is attacking the messenger, and I attacked the messages of the SCOTUS.
Of course, I will use ad hominem to point out the obvious in this case in that you are behaving like a literal moron [thefreedictionary.com], jumping about from one point to another like jell-o that doesn't want to be nailed to the wall.