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

Comments

Rich LaDuca said…
But stun guns aren't manufactured by the weapons and armament conglomerates that own Congress...
So the companies that make stun guns aren't allowed to use the Constitution as a marketing ploy...
Duh!
Lorne Thomas said…
Because stun guns were popular in the 1770's Jason ON?
Lorne Thomas said…
Rich LaDuca you are a simpleton.
Rich LaDuca said…
Lorne Thomas
You might want to look at my profile...
Who you regard as a 'simpleton'  might redirect itself.
The law doesn't work on common sense though. While what you've said is a really good argument against making the laws that outlawed stun guns in the first place, it isn't relevant to whether the Constitution protects that right. Which, it doesn't, or wouldn't without activist supreme court justices, who have expanded the 2nd amendment beyond its original text in a direction that happens to include stun guns.
Lorne Thomas said…
Rich LaDuca if you aren't then try a bit harder to keep your words in check, because they betray that you are.
Rich LaDuca said…
Lorne Thomas You are much more of a comedy gold mine than you will probably ever realize.
Jason ON said…
Kevin C., the Second Amendment says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

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.
Lorne Thomas said…
Let's not forget that beyond the fact that it is the right of the people, peer reviewed studies by Harvard found that gun control is actually counter productive to keeping a society safe.

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.
Rich LaDuca said…
Jason ON
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.
Jason ON said…
Rich LaDuca, I agree whole-heartily!

Popular posts from this blog

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.