I think that it's worth bringing this up for the "We just want common sense gun control. " people out there.

It's safe to say that there's near perfect overlap between those people and the people who support "assault weapon" bans, and make the claim that restrictions on certain weapons are constitutional because the Founders and the Framers didn't have the weapons we have now when they wrote the Second Amendment.

Just look at Caetano v. Massachusetts for a bit.

This isn't ancient history. This was 2016.

Fortunately, the SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the Massachusetts law that would have put a battered woman in prison for defending herself to be unconstitutional. It also ruled against the reasoning from Massachusetts that the state's law against stun guns was constitutional because stun guns weren't in common use in 1791. The SCOTUS concluded that common use applied to now.

This was a case out of Massachusetts, one of the most restrictive states regarding guns as well as being a duty to die state, in which Jaime Caetano was attempting to escape an abusive relationship. She had filed restraining orders against her ex-boyfriend, which he repeatedly violated. A friend of her's gave her a stun gun. When the ex-boyfriend threatened Caetano at work, she displayed the stun gun.

Caetano didn't fire the stun gun.

The ex-boyfriend backed off. Still, when the police arrived, and found that Caetano had the stun gun, they placed HER under arrest and charged HER.

Again, the state of Massachusetts thought that that law was perfectly Kosher because they didn't have stun guns in 1791.

So, forget the fact that other countries like Canada already have laws against people carrying tasers or pepper spray, states in this country have already made moves to do that.

If a gun-grabbing state like Massachusetts made a move to ban stun guns for self-defense, forget about it when it comes to 9mm or .45ACP handguns for self-defense.

The defenders of common sense when it comes to guns and self-defense -- the 2A absolutists like me -- are already fighting an uphill battle. We're the only side that has made compromises. We're the side that's regularly telling the truth.

So, we can't take any risks when you people on the other side make the same arguments as the people who were willing to fight to the SCOTUS to get a battered woman thrown in prison for defending herself with a stun gun. I'm not going to take your word for it. I want a paper trail. I want a declaration of where you will stop in your pursuit in removing guns from the hands of citizens that I can rub in your face later.

Until you give me that certainty, I'm gonna assume that you're lying. I'm going to assume that because I have to.