Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Correct – no one advocates ‘banning’ all guns.Well, first of all, there are no rights to driving a motor vehicle outlined in the constitution, so, having speed limits is a legitimate set of laws.That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.
I wish the State good luck with that. LOL
So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?
Putting laws on motor vehicles doesn't have any nearing on freedoms and liberties of the people, however, speeding poses an imminent danger to the driver as well as other motorists on the road. Aside from the driver possibly making a mistake and causing harm to others, there are also outside factors to consider. Road conditions, weather, congestion, all of those things pose a problem where excess speed is concerned.
As far as seatbelt laws are concerned, I disagree with them. If you want to drive around without a safety belt, that should be your business. It's like how most states don't have helmet laws, but they have seatbelt laws. That doesn't make any sense. The only time a seat belt law should be enforced is if there is a child in the car, who doesn't have the ability to protect themselves, or affect the outcome should an accident happen.
Most laws are redundant, murder, robbery, those are things that are common sense and apply to all people. Other laws are implemented to guide people into following the rules, don't cheat on your taxes, don't trespass on private property.
None of these apply to guns, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. This idea that banning guns will make the country a safer place is just a myth. Murderers will find a way to murder, and often, with just as much efficiency as a firearm.
Who's talking about "banning" guns? As a lifelong gun enthusiast, hunter, and law-abiding U.S. citizen - I fully support closing all loopholes. Here's what I want: Ban assault weapons (like in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). Ban high-capacity magazines. Universal background checks. Address mental health, domestic abuse and reporting issues. Accurate and timely information being fed into an enhanced National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). All responsible gun owners should want this. States have a right to regulate guns.
Funny and stupid.As we can see. It gives us the ability to deport and/or shoot those motherfuckers. We can't really stop them, but a wall will slow them down.Hey, why have immigration laws!? Illegals will just ignore them.
So, immigration laws good, gun laws bad. Funny...
Nonsense – this is a ridiculous rightwing lie."Tough" gun laws operate to disarm the law-abiding, making them more vulnerable to the criminal element who ignore those stupid laws and arm themselves with black market guns.I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.
The ability for government to control guns is equal to its ability to control narcotics. When will you and those who think like you wise up to that simple fact? The only good thing about the Massachusetts law is the training requirement (for those who can't pass a proficiency test). That will be helpful.
It's $100 bucks !!! No poor person in MassaHoochets gonna afford that. I sense a discrimination suit on this. Must be rich white privilege to have a "permit"..
Here's the Application that's so innovative and exciting.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/12/13/Updated LTC_FID card app - REVISED 05.19.15.pdf
Far as I can tell, most ALL of the questions are on the EXISTING NICS questionnaire.. Except maybe that "Green Card" question. And here's the WORST PART..
Far as I can tell the ACTIVE DATE on a "permit" is TEN DAYS.. $100 for a 10 day window to buy "ONE" gun or as many as you want??? And do you have to take the SAME COURSE everytime you purchase ANOTHER GUN?
If you do --- it's a $100 TAX on every gun you buy. THERE is what MassaHoochets is doing right there...
I smell law suits. Fire up the Supremes. I wanna hear "Come See About Me" or "Run RUn Run".
Even if true - it's a small price to pay for owning deadly weapons!
The most deadly weapon in America is the automobile... You have a Constitutional Right to own a firearm but you do not have a Constitutional Right to drive.
So let cut the nonsense and admit firearms are only dangerous to those like you that are ignorant...
Firearms are designed to kill . Cars are not .
Quit falling down the well, Vehicle ownership is not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right till someone fucks it up for themselves.
“Absolute right “ ? Making shit up again?
Registering guns and their sales doesn’t infrInge on your right to bear arms.
And in some states convicted felons are prohibited from voting, just as they are prohibited from possessing a gun.If I have a right there is no need to register.Quit falling down the well, Vehicle ownership is not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right till someone fucks it up for themselves.The most deadly weapon in America is the automobile... You have a Constitutional Right to own a firearm but you do not have a Constitutional Right to drive.
So let cut the nonsense and admit firearms are only dangerous to those like you that are ignorant...
Firearms are designed to kill . Cars are not .
“Absolute right “ ? Making shit up again?
Registering guns and their sales doesn’t infrInge on your right to bear arms.
Do you have to register your mouth, computers, pens and paper to exercise your first amendment rights of free speech?
Duh, we have to register to vote.
No, what’s simple is that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.You have to consider any conflict of laws. The unorganized militia is not expressly declared Necessary; it really is that simple.Well regulated militia are People, too.Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; so, yes, possession is, nine-tenths of the law.
the right of the people shall not be infringed.
the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Very simple, the right of the people shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment allows me to purchase a gun if I so choose.
No, you don’t.You cite to no sources on the intent of the framers. We do.The People and The Militia are plural, not Individual, every time we have to quibble meaning.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Was he referring to an individual or the communist collective?
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Does that sound like your communist "People" plurality that really means nobody?
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
Are you going to argue that "Everyone" means the collective communist nobody "People" like before?
So, nobody takes you seriously, dan, because you will not rebut ONE BIT of the above. You will repeat your unsourced bullshit.
We source. You don't.
You lose.
Clayton, are you at all familiar with how difficult it is for a respectable, law-abiding citizen to obtain a CCW in places like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, et al? And purchasing a shoulder weapon has become infinitely more difficult than it was back in the 50s and 60s.Nonsense – this is a ridiculous rightwing lie.
And yet again: no one advocates ‘disarming’ anyone.
No one wants to ‘ban’ all guns.
No one seeks to make anyone ‘vulnerable’ to criminals.
Most conservatives are nothing but demagogues and liars.
No, what’s simple is that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.You have to consider any conflict of laws. The unorganized militia is not expressly declared Necessary; it really is that simple.Well regulated militia are People, too.the right of the people shall not be infringed.
the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Very simple, the right of the people shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment allows me to purchase a gun if I so choose.
And Second Amendment case law holds that government may not prohibit you from possessing a handgun.
“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Heller, ibid
The right of the people has not been infringed if government regulates firearms in accordance with that case law.
I am a federalist; I actually understand the federal doctrine, unlike republicans.Then, quit implying.Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.
Read what THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES said about it:
"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998)."
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment(providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendmentprotects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may have or keep in his House … any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
It goes on further here: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Do you disagree with THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES, Sanchito?
So, you agree with the Heller decision or not? You are ignoring the issue and spouting your bullshit again, again,again (x1000).I am a federalist; I actually understand the federal doctrine, unlike republicans.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our Second Amendment has nothing to with natural rights, or it would Expressly state it.
A simple legal error. There is no provision for natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so, in the first clause.So, you agree with the Heller decision or not? You are ignoring the issue and spouting your bullshit again, again,again (x1000).I am a federalist; I actually understand the federal doctrine, unlike republicans.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our Second Amendment has nothing to with natural rights, or it would Expressly state it.
You have no source confirming your position.A simple legal error. There is no provision for natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so, in the first clause.
I am a federalist; I will stick our supreme law of the land and the federal doctrine.You have no source confirming your position.A simple legal error. There is no provision for natural rights in our Second Amendment or it would say so, in the first clause.
I will stick with the SCOTUS on all that.
You are not smart enough to presume to know more law than the Supreme Court.
All you do is change the topic with your bullshit repetition that nobody (not even you) knows what the hell your are trying to say.
It's repetitive, old, and useless. You try to wear down your opponents by repeating bullshit when you get backed into a corner and try to fight your way out with more "wellness of necessary" bullshit that is EXACTLY contrary to all legal precedent.
You have no arguments. You are a fucking Mexican idiot and you need to go back to Mexico where you belong.
More repetitive bullshit with no authority or sources.I am a federalist; I will stick our supreme law of the land and the federal doctrine.
There is no provision for natural rights, in the first clause, or it would be Expressed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Don't recognize our own, Second Amendment, right wingers?More repetitive bullshit with no authority or sources.I am a federalist; I will stick our supreme law of the land and the federal doctrine.
There is no provision for natural rights, in the first clause, or it would be Expressed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Incorrect.it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.simply claiming that is a fallacy, unless you can explain why.As has been unambiguously demonstrated previously: you are entirely wrong, because you rely entirely upon fallacies... which you (predictably) defend with some "Appeal to Gibberish."I can't be wrong; i am resorting to the fewest fallacies.
Well, since you put it that way, here you go.
Do you?Don't recognize our own, Second Amendment, right wingers?
Hypothetically, and in that alternative,Incorrect.it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.simply claiming that is a fallacy, unless you can explain why.As has been unambiguously demonstrated previously: you are entirely wrong, because you rely entirely upon fallacies... which you (predictably) defend with some "Appeal to Gibberish."I can't be wrong; i am resorting to the fewest fallacies.
Well, since you put it that way, here you go.
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause, meaning that is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.
Sorry about your luck.
Yes, I do. I don't ignore express terms, like the right wing.Do you?Don't recognize our own, Second Amendment, right wingers?
