4 ms·

This actually might make sense is a warped sort of way, if you interpret the "being necessary to the security of a free state" as literal and integral to the 2n

by bcg1 12y ago

This actually might make sense is a warped sort of way, if you interpret the "being necessary to the security of a free state" as literal and integral to the 2nd amendment... it is hard to argue that stun guns would be useful in defending against impending tyranny. It is a stupid law though, I can't believe that people choose to live in a state where you can't protect yourself a weapon designed to inflict the least amount of permanent damage necessary

15155 12y ago
The Supreme Court of the United States and most legal scholars (post-Heller) agree that the justification for the Second Amendment is not a prescribed limitation. "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a reason the Second Amendment exists, not the only reason or one that limitations may be paved around. The comma makes all the difference. The original text is only marginally meaningful, post-Heller, as the interpretation that individuals may own and bear arms (specifically semi-automatic handguns - presented as those in "common use") is now law - carrying the same weight as if it were written two hundred years ago. I was so happy the day that decision came through: small-minded individuals making arguments based on flawed interpretations of semantics were immediately put to rest. ------ re: stun guns - I agree that this is ridiculous, but a firearm is a much better tool for self-defense (not that you shouldn't be allowed to make that bad choice).
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  > I was so happy the day that decision came through District of Columbia v. Heller and the related McDonald v. City of Chicago were both decided 5-4 in favor of gun freedom. One more "proud Latina" and things could have turned out very differently. It's amazing how preserving our fundamental rights often comes down to the personal prejudices of Supreme Court justices.
  - 15155 12y ago
    Hopefully Ginsburg stands down in the next presidency. One can hope.
blisterpeanuts 12y ago
What's really fun is going through the process of getting a gun license in Massachusetts. Fill out a state application and mail it to the government. They put you in the system. Then fill out a local form and submit it, along with two letters of reference from upstanding citizens and $100, to your local police chief. Then, after several weeks, they call you to go in and get fingerprinted and photographed. For the rest of your life, your prints will be in a national database. Then, wait anywhere from 6 weeks to 6 months to find out whether the chief wants to grant you an LTC. If he decides you're too iffy, or your background doesn't check out, or he got up on the wrong side of the bed, you're out of luck (and out $100). If you're lucky, you'll get your LTC, just in time to miss this year's hunting season. Or you could move to a state like Arizona, get up on Saturday morning and drive to the gun show, and come home with whatever arms and ammo you desire! And carry them openly or concealed. No fuss, no muss. I suspect a taser or such device would be about as regulated as guns, which is to say not at all (in AZ), but I have no experience.

by bcg1 12y ago

15155 12y ago

The Supreme Court of the United States and most legal scholars (post-Heller) agree that the justification for the Second Amendment is not a prescribed limitation. "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a reason the Second Amendment exists, not the only reason or one that limitations may be paved around. The comma makes all the difference. The original text is only marginally meaningful, post-Heller, as the interpretation that individuals may own and bear arms (specifically semi-automatic handguns - presented as those in "common use") is now law - carrying the same weight as if it were written two hundred years ago. I was so happy the day that decision came through: small-minded individuals making arguments based on flawed interpretations of semantics were immediately put to rest. ------ re: stun guns - I agree that this is ridiculous, but a firearm is a much better tool for self-defense (not that you shouldn't be allowed to make that bad choice).

PhantomGremlin 12y ago
> I was so happy the day that decision came through District of Columbia v. Heller and the related McDonald v. City of Chicago were both decided 5-4 in favor of gun freedom. One more "proud Latina" and things could have turned out very differently. It's amazing how preserving our fundamental rights often comes down to the personal prejudices of Supreme Court justices.
- 15155 12y ago
  Hopefully Ginsburg stands down in the next presidency. One can hope.

blisterpeanuts 12y ago

What's really fun is going through the process of getting a gun license in Massachusetts. Fill out a state application and mail it to the government. They put you in the system. Then fill out a local form and submit it, along with two letters of reference from upstanding citizens and $100, to your local police chief. Then, after several weeks, they call you to go in and get fingerprinted and photographed. For the rest of your life, your prints will be in a national database. Then, wait anywhere from 6 weeks to 6 months to find out whether the chief wants to grant you an LTC. If he decides you're too iffy, or your background doesn't check out, or he got up on the wrong side of the bed, you're out of luck (and out $100). If you're lucky, you'll get your LTC, just in time to miss this year's hunting season. Or you could move to a state like Arizona, get up on Saturday morning and drive to the gun show, and come home with whatever arms and ammo you desire! And carry them openly or concealed. No fuss, no muss. I suspect a taser or such device would be about as regulated as guns, which is to say not at all (in AZ), but I have no experience.