Why is it, that if the Founders of our great republic never foresaw the development of the semi-automatic handgun it somehow nullifies our Second Amendment right to own and carry sidearms, but the fact that those very same Founders failed to foresee the development of the motion picture, typewriter, telephone, radio, television, and the internet somehow doesn't infringe on the First Amendment rights concerning those technological developments?

If one is going to insist that the Second Amendment was only intended to apply to the single-shot pistols that were common during the time of the Constitution's drafting, why have I never heard support for the right to keep and bear single-shot pistols that would be the modern equivalent of colonial era blackpower sidearms?

Now I can understand that there are some who simply do not like guns and are not comfortable keeping one near them. I do not feel safe riding motorcycles. To each his own. But the Second Amendment doesn't just protect our right to own and carry firearms. It guarantees our right to "keep and bear arms". Including Tasers.

Now here is a opportunity to see exactly how twisted the anti-gun movement is.

The Taser is a beautiful weapon. Here we have a marvel of modern technology that allows a vulnerable college coed to defend herself against rape and murder without the danger, legal hoop jumping,  or social stigma associated with packing a .38. Indeed the modern Taser even releases 20-30 plastic identification tags with every Taser cartridge fired so as to save her from suspicion should a criminal use a Taser to commit a crime. It's nearly the perfect self defense weapon: non-leathal, easy to use, legal to carry, and very effective.

And yet...

And yet the anti-gun people want them banned. Or maybe what they really want banned is the right to self defense.

Recently, as I'm sure you've heard, a young man killed over thirty people in Virginia with handguns. And as sure a the sun will rise in the morning, the debate between the more gun control and the less gun control crowds will rage for at least the next couple weeks.

One the one hand, if some of the students at V-Tech had been armed the odds are that the death count would have been significantly lower. The killer may even have been disuaded from his spree altogether had he known his targets would be capable of shooting back. I hold this view myself.

Alternatively, if you accept that is possible to remove all guns from a society (though I don't agree with this assumption) then of course it would be impossible for a killer to use guns on his killing spree. Though one might ask what he might use in place of a gun.

But the question that nobody seems to be asking is:

How many lives could have been saved if just one young woman at Norris Hall carried a Taser in her bag?