[Texas Fossil]

So there we have it, this reaffirms part of the reason that we Americans have the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is there to tell the government that we have the right to protect ourselves -- especially when the government, Federal, State, County, or City governments, cannot or will not do so, or even threatens us if we do.

Yes. That is what the 2nd Amendment was/is about.

[vpintheak]

I don’t know what is more pathetic. The leftists that want disarmed sheep to be ravaged by the wolves; or the countless people who allow them to have their way.
So incredibly disgusting.

[Vendome]

Her “Wusband” needs to be shot.

[Daniel Ramsey]

I was in Australia a couple of months ago, you could panic people if they saw you carrying a simple Leatherman in a belt case. Loved the country hated the social indoctrination of the sheeple. If i were to go back someday i would spend all my time building totally concealed defensive and offensive devices. James Bond type of stuff.

If America came to the same conclusion of that poor country i guarantee that several hundred million people will start carrying sword canes, gas propelled shark darts, taser style gloves, green laser personal blinders aimed to disorientate physical attackers, new age body armor designed to react to knife attacks.

It would be a massive culture shift to get around the absense of guns, quite frankly with the freedom of creativity it would actually make for more effective weapons, so let them ponder that, just leave it alone.

But of course these political addicts won’t, they fully realize how to use it for building the staircase to their personal thrones.

[AlaskaErik]

Unfortunately, she’s living in the wrong state if she wants to protect herself.

[kdot]

“I believe my sister should carry a stun gun “

Why wouldn’t you advise her to defend herself using the most lethal weapon possible (legally, of course)? There are plenty of compact firearms and confidence comes to a woman who can defend herself. The magnitude of the threat should determine the ferocity of the defense.

[JimRed]

But, the Supreme Court did not agree and instead said that the Heller precedent rejected the proposition "that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected."

The Claymores in my bushes are perfectly legal?

[reg45]

On April 18th 1775, a force of British Redcoats set out to seize a cache of military style assault weapons from the Massachusetts colonists. Fortunately, the Redcoats failed. The flintlock rifle was the military style assault weapon of its day.

Free men have the right to bear arms, slaves do not. That is one of the differences between free men and slaves.

[jmacusa]

I don’t want to ‘’stun’’ someone who is attacking me or mine. I want them dead. Half measures avail nothing.

[stylin19a]

stun gun ? that’s nuts ! If he attacks and in the end he’s not dead, he will attack again.

[WildHighlander57]

Tom Correa’s sister needs to get out of ElDorado county.

As soon as humanly possible.

[packrat01]

I don't get it...

The majority of the article was the SC declaring stun guns to be protected "arms" under the 2nd, yet early in the article the author writes:

For the record, I believe my sister should carry a stun gun with as heavy a charge as one can carry legally.

Why carry a .22 (e.g 10,000 volts) if you can carry a .45 (e.g. 250,000 volts); if BOTH fall under the 2nd?