Yet, thank whatever you hold dear, the common interpretation of the second amendment has held that the technology involved is that required for a militia of rea

Yet, thank whatever you hold dear, the common interpretation of the second amendment has held that the technology involved is that required for a militia of reasonable effectiveness, and as such it's kept pace with modern developments. The court specifically points out that such tazers are not militarily useful, and as such you don't get that same guarantee.