Jul 11, 1999 - SO WHAT DOES the Second Amendment mean? Second Thoughts. The number of weapons that may be purchased in a single transaction.
![Second Second](https://www.music-bazaar.com/album-images/vol1007/538/538593/2377756-big/Second-Thoughts-cover.jpg)
ADVERTISEMENT'You know, I was going to ask you, about 'Bowling for Columbine,' about guns,' Maher said.' Now that facism's coming to America, and their side has all the guns. Any second thoughts?' Seventy-eight percent of Americans do not own a gun,' Moore responded.' Right, and they're all the liberals,' Maher shot back.' There are 7 million Americans that own 160 million guns,' Moore continued.
'They have stockpiled them. This is the elephant in the room in terms of the discussion of what are we all going to do, putting our bodies on the line, what does that really mean.' Moore added that the high numbers of firearms in America were a worry among some supporters in 2016, who warned of possible violence from Trump supporters upon her expected victory.'
People who voted for Hillary were afraid that she would win, because of, he told 'my Second Amendment people' that 'this is going to be a rigged election, get your guns, get ready.' He was calling for an armed revolt if Hillary won,' Moore said.Moore went on to argue that the civil war 'would already have happened' if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.Trump frequently accused his opponent, Clinton, of dirty tricks and his predecessor former President Obama of 'rigging' the 2016 election in the weeks and months leading up to the November vote.' You've got to get every one of your friends.
You've got to get every one of your family. You've got to get everybody to go out and watch. And go out and vote,' Trump in Akron, Ohio, in August of that year.' And when I say watch, you know what I'm talking about, right?
You know what I'm taking about. I think you got to go out and you got to watch.'
AbstractThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) recently declared that the Commonwealth’s statutory ban on stun guns violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. The SJC had previously upheld the statute against constitutional challenge in Commonwealth v. Caetano, but the reasoning behind this holding was rejected in a brief per curium opinion by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2016. However, the guidance given by the Supreme Court in the Caetano litigation was far from unambiguous: it faulted the SJC’s reasoning without opining on the ultimate question of the ban’s constitutionality, thus leaving open the possibility that the statute could pass constitutional muster under an alternative analytic approach. This essay discusses what such an alternative approach might have looked like. Specifically, I suggest that the SJC could have upheld the statutory ban by emphasizing the relative rarity of stun guns as a preferred means of self-defense not only as a matter of founding era history, but also as a matter of contemporary reality. This sort of analysis would have allowed the SJC to distinguish stun guns from other weapons that have received constitutional protection in other cases, and would have been fully consistent with both the scope and limitations of the right to bear arms under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence.