Self-Defense Ruled Illegal

This judge “reasoned” that, since stun guns were not in general use, nor had yet to be invented at the time the Constitution was written, the Second Amendment did not recognize them when weapons were ruled to be necessary for survival. Just the opposite of the way they falsely misread the Second Amendment to mean that guns were only necessary for members of an “organized militia,” something that did not exist then. But the comparison doesn't work, because the Second Amendment doesn't JUST cover “weapons” like guns. It is there to recognize that SELF-DEFENSE is an inherent right and the ownership and use of guns, being one way to that end, must be maintained. But it did NOT specify guns as the ONLY protected weapon, yet invented, or not.

Yes, a stun gun is a recent invention. But is a NON-LETHAL method of self-defense and is useful because it WORKS. A FIST is an effective weapon too, but it CANNOT be made illegal to carry (or they would). The judge, in Massachusetts (where else), says the woman in the case should get a license and carry a gun—something almost IMPOSSIBLE to do in Massachusetts, so she'll probably either be killed, or be forced to become a criminal to survive if she does get a gun. They also approve her using pepper spray, whose usage as a defensive weapon is ALSO recent. Fortunately, like Obama says, this is only ONE JUDGE, and we don't need to follow his orders outside of Massachusetts. (Federalist Papers Project)