Non-lethal weapons such as stun guns should have always been a right of the people.
Non-lethal weapons such as stun guns should have always been a right of the people. First and foremost, every single one of us has a right to defend ourselves if under threat. Second, non-lethal weapons should be preferred over lethal ones.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-stun-guns-20160321-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-stun-guns-20160321-story.html
Comments
So the companies that make stun guns aren't allowed to use the Constitution as a marketing ploy...
Duh!
You might want to look at my profile...
Who you regard as a 'simpleton' might redirect itself.
Now, I know what you're referring to with your statement about activist judges. You're insinuating that the Constitution only protects the right to bear arms as long as the people are fulfilling their duties within a militia. However, that's debatable: http://www.voanews.com/content/scholars_debate_second_amendment_to_us_constitution/1443917.html
The truth of the matter is SCotUS has decided the Second Amendment means people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and as much as you may disagree with it, it is the law of the land.
Unless, you also agree that "bear arms" only means the right to keep and posses the arms of bears.Then you might have a case.
Supporting gun control is supporting organized crime, victimizing civilization at large with violence, empowering terrorists, and harming children.
What we need is fundamental and firearms safety courses to be part of the public school curriculum from an early age. Just stick it in there with the other objectionable courses that religious people dislike, for example, sex ed and evolution in science class.
Just as important... That court has also made it clear that Law Enforcement is under absolutely no obligation to protect people.
And that the firearm(s) they posses, are initially there to protect themselves.
so... We The People are responsible for our own safety / protection.
I would rather see a public being encouraged to invest in (potentially) non-lethal methods.
The wholesale encouragement that even the least-common-denominator posses a lethal weapon... Is a really bad idea.
That's not to detract from our rights and responsibilities as citizens...
I'm critical of the agenda / marketing / rhetoric that is inspiring (even / unfortunately) an onslaught of complete and unstable imbeciles to arm themselves.