Pro Gun Vermont Gov signs sensible gun control law.

[Skull Pilot]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Nothing better than 1st class and 2nd class citizens.

figures a brit cuck like you approves of this.

Banning bump stocks is a bad thing?

Banning them is stupid, you can make your own for 20 bucks. But it makes you sissies warm and fuzzy

Which is why there will be a federal law by 2020 that outlaws owning an assault weapon without a class 3 license. And that will be defined as any weapon that can fire a given amount of ammo in under a certain time limit, and has a quickly replacable magazine.

IOW any weapon that fires one round per trigger pull

 

[SassyIrishLass]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Nothing better than 1st class and 2nd class citizens.

figures a brit cuck like you approves of this.

Banning bump stocks is a bad thing?

Banning them is stupid, you can make your own for 20 bucks. But it makes you sissies warm and fuzzy

Which is why there will be a federal law by 2020 that outlaws owning an assault weapon without a class 3 license. And that will be defined as any weapon that can fire a given amount of ammo in under a certain time limit, and has a quickly replacable magazine.

Yeah sure...just funny comments and keep your goofy loon ramblings to yourself. Nobody cares

 

[martybegan]

Again, when are the police giving up their magazines of higher capacity than allowed by this law?

What are you worried about the police for?

What i worry is about some citizens having more rights than others.

What I worry about is more blood in mass shootings. But then again, I'm not the NRA or a gun manufacturer profiting from them.

You have a better chance of progressives making an oppressive government a reality than of being in a mass shooting.

But you think you will be one of the oppressors, not one of the oppresse's, so there's that.

Oh dear....now you are afraid that I'm oppressing you.

progressives whole matra is oppression for your own good. my Sig covers my views on that.

 

[Timmy]

Texting and driving is illegal.

Yeah so no one does it

Gun nut logic says “why make it illegal , criminals will do it anyway. You are just hassling law abiding texters”

So wasting time and money on things that don't work is what you want to do?

And some idiot millennial texting while driving is far more likely to kill you than a guy with a bump stock.

Well now, why don't you ask the families of the 58 people killed in Vegas? Or any of the 500 wounded?

Statistically insignificant.

You always ridicule people who use the weather outside their front door as a gauge for global warming and now you're doing the same thing

Terror attcaks are statistically insignificant . Yet we spend billions trying to prevent them.

 

[Timmy]

What are you worried about the police for?

What i worry is about some citizens having more rights than others.

What I worry about is more blood in mass shootings. But then again, I'm not the NRA or a gun manufacturer profiting from them.

You have a better chance of progressives making an oppressive government a reality than of being in a mass shooting.

But you think you will be one of the oppressors, not one of the oppresse's, so there's that.

Oh dear....now you are afraid that I'm oppressing you.

progressives whole matra is oppression for your own good. my Sig covers my views on that.

So keep your sig.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah so no one does it

Gun nut logic says “why make it illegal , criminals will do it anyway. You are just hassling law abiding texters”

So wasting time and money on things that don't work is what you want to do?

And some idiot millennial texting while driving is far more likely to kill you than a guy with a bump stock.

Well now, why don't you ask the families of the 58 people killed in Vegas? Or any of the 500 wounded?

Statistically insignificant.

You always ridicule people who use the weather outside their front door as a gauge for global warming and now you're doing the same thing

Terror attcaks are statistically insignificant . Yet we spend billions trying to prevent them.

Wasted money and the fear mongering over terror attacks is just a government tactic to get you to give up more of your rights. The sad thing is that it's working,

 

[martybegan]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Good for them! There is certainly NOTHING scary in any of that legislation. It fairly deals with the hunting issue and allowing immediate family members to transfer ownership without a background check.
So what's the problem with ANY of this?

Again, when are the police giving up their magazines of higher capacity than allowed by this law?

Well now, since one of the arguments by idiots like you is that if you put restrictions on who in general public can own this type of weapon, then criminals will still have this type of weapon. So the police should also be allowed to match the firepower of the criminals. Then again, maybe that is a concern of yours. LOL

Why shouldn't everyone be able to match the firepower of the criminals?

There is nothing more insidious than a government that doesn't enforce the laws equally between government actors and non-government actors.

But since you are a government power cocksucker and wish to force people via government to do things in general, I'm not surprised by your statement.

 

[martybegan]

What i worry is about some citizens having more rights than others.

What I worry about is more blood in mass shootings. But then again, I'm not the NRA or a gun manufacturer profiting from them.

You have a better chance of progressives making an oppressive government a reality than of being in a mass shooting.

But you think you will be one of the oppressors, not one of the oppresse's, so there's that.

Oh dear....now you are afraid that I'm oppressing you.

progressives whole matra is oppression for your own good. my Sig covers my views on that.

So keep your sig.

Signature, not Sig Sauer.

 

[Timmy]

What I worry about is more blood in mass shootings. But then again, I'm not the NRA or a gun manufacturer profiting from them.

You have a better chance of progressives making an oppressive government a reality than of being in a mass shooting.

But you think you will be one of the oppressors, not one of the oppresse's, so there's that.

Oh dear....now you are afraid that I'm oppressing you.

progressives whole matra is oppression for your own good. my Sig covers my views on that.

So keep your sig.

Signature, not Sig Sauer.

Ha! You can see how I would think that.

 

[martybegan]

You have a better chance of progressives making an oppressive government a reality than of being in a mass shooting.

But you think you will be one of the oppressors, not one of the oppresse's, so there's that.

Oh dear....now you are afraid that I'm oppressing you.

progressives whole matra is oppression for your own good. my Sig covers my views on that.

So keep your sig.

Signature, not Sig Sauer.

Ha! You can see how I would think that.

I would have used capitals to describe the weapon, as I did just before.

 

[Timmy]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Good for them! There is certainly NOTHING scary in any of that legislation. It fairly deals with the hunting issue and allowing immediate family members to transfer ownership without a background check.
So what's the problem with ANY of this?

Again, when are the police giving up their magazines of higher capacity than allowed by this law?

Well now, since one of the arguments by idiots like you is that if you put restrictions on who in general public can own this type of weapon, then criminals will still have this type of weapon. So the police should also be allowed to match the firepower of the criminals. Then again, maybe that is a concern of yours. LOL

Why shouldn't everyone be able to match the firepower of the criminals?

There is nothing more insidious than a government that doesn't enforce the laws equally between government actors and non-government actors.

But since you are a government power cocksucker and wish to force people via government to do things in general, I'm not surprised by your statement.

Everyone should have the same firepower as military and police ?

 

[martybegan]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Good for them! There is certainly NOTHING scary in any of that legislation. It fairly deals with the hunting issue and allowing immediate family members to transfer ownership without a background check.
So what's the problem with ANY of this?

Again, when are the police giving up their magazines of higher capacity than allowed by this law?

Well now, since one of the arguments by idiots like you is that if you put restrictions on who in general public can own this type of weapon, then criminals will still have this type of weapon. So the police should also be allowed to match the firepower of the criminals. Then again, maybe that is a concern of yours. LOL

Why shouldn't everyone be able to match the firepower of the criminals?

There is nothing more insidious than a government that doesn't enforce the laws equally between government actors and non-government actors.

But since you are a government power cocksucker and wish to force people via government to do things in general, I'm not surprised by your statement.

Everyone should have the same firepower as military and police ?

Who is talking about the military?

Why should the police be the sole owner of effective force?

Why should a police officer be given a pass on what he owns in his own home simply because he is a police officer?

 

[Humorme]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

So the Second Amendment is dead; gun rights lobbyists rolled over and didn't put up a fight. What's new?

The Republic is gone and the heathen are happy.

God you are so dramatic . Banning bump stocks and raising the age is killing the 2nd ?

You should have foregone the criticism. The answer to your question is, you damn right Skippy. Banning magazines, bump stocks, etc. KILLED the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment provides:

"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."

So, what is an infringement?

"to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"

Definition of INFRINGE

Pay attention to the bolded words. Words have meanings. An infringement not only includes and encroachment happens when you violate the law but, when you violate the Rights of another.

According to the Declaration of Independence:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:


"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."


The Courts have had this to say regarding the Declaration of Independence:


"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."


Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)


The state courts were the first to interpret our U.S. Constitution on this issue. How did they feel? Here is the earliest of those decisions:


"But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form—it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. ... The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; ... For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing [of] concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former is unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."


Source: Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 KY. (2 LITT.) 90 (Kentucky 1822)


"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!


Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


Our "own Magna Charta" would be the Declaration of Independence. That document established the principle of unalienable Rights.


The state of Texas weighed in a little later, They ruled:


"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."


Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)


Are you beginning to see that theme regarding unalienable and absolute / shall not be infringed where the Right is above the lawmaking power? Finally, let us see how the earliest United States Supreme Court decision saw this issue:


"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.


United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


Notice that the Court did not say the Right doesn't exist. They admit it DOES, in fact, exist. So, by what authority can you deprive a freeman of his unalienable (aka natural, God given, inherent, absolute) Rights? In a de jure / lawful / constitutional government, you can't. You don't have that authority. You may have that power, but once a man has been released back into society, he should retain his Rights. His wife and daughter deserve the same protections your family do.

Vermont went after not only weapons, making sure to have statewide registration, but to go after cosmetic features and high capacity magazines. In the world I live in, high capacity magazines are a must. This happened in my own neighborhood:

https://nypost.com/2016/09/23/video-shows-woman-shooting-home-intruders-one-fatally/

There is no such thing as a "common sense gun regulation" no more than there is common sense regulation on what religion you can believe. Those Rights are, as the earliest Courts ruled, above the law. And that is why the definition of the word infringe not only includes violating the laws, but violating the Rights of another.

Now, I expect that you will laugh and rub the gun owner's noses into the dirt over your hollow victory, but I will share with you the words of one of our founding fathers. It's one you will ignore until Uncle Scam comes after one of YOUR Rights:

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty.It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

—Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

And let me remind you, when I gave that warning to the right, they gave me the same, exact reply you're about to give me - and then one of their United States Supreme Court decisions was used against them in a very big way. But, have at it. One day it WILL be YOUR Rights.

And, if the militia we were worth two hoots in Hell, they would be IN Vermont, not allowing this kind of B.S. to happen in the first place. Back to you...

 

[Humorme]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Nothing better than 1st class and 2nd class citizens.

figures a brit cuck like you approves of this.

Banning bump stocks is a bad thing?

Banning them is stupid, you can make your own for 20 bucks. But it makes you sissies warm and fuzzy

Which is why there will be a federal law by 2020 that outlaws owning an assault weapon without a class 3 license. And that will be defined as any weapon that can fire a given amount of ammo in under a certain time limit, and has a quickly replacable magazine.

Six shot revolvers can deliver too... so, by your "logic" If that is what you think you're applying, ALL weapons will be class 3 (sic.)

 

[Skull Pilot]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Good for them! There is certainly NOTHING scary in any of that legislation. It fairly deals with the hunting issue and allowing immediate family members to transfer ownership without a background check.
So what's the problem with ANY of this?

Again, when are the police giving up their magazines of higher capacity than allowed by this law?

Well now, since one of the arguments by idiots like you is that if you put restrictions on who in general public can own this type of weapon, then criminals will still have this type of weapon. So the police should also be allowed to match the firepower of the criminals. Then again, maybe that is a concern of yours. LOL

Why shouldn't everyone be able to match the firepower of the criminals?

There is nothing more insidious than a government that doesn't enforce the laws equally between government actors and non-government actors.

But since you are a government power cocksucker and wish to force people via government to do things in general, I'm not surprised by your statement.

Everyone should have the same firepower as military and police ?

Why not?

 

[Anathema]

Everyone should have the same firepower as military and police ?

Everyone should have access to the same equipment that any law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over them has AND which any military unit which can be brought to bear against them has access to.

 

[bodecea]

He was inspired to do so after police prevented a would be school shooter.

How Vermont’s NRA A-rated governor was ‘shocked’ into backing new gun laws

three laws Scott signed Wednesday ban the possession and sale of bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a long gun and 15 for a handgun, unless purchased before Oct. 1.

To ensure background checks on private gun sales, the new laws require that all guns be bought and sold through a licensed firearm dealer, excluding sales between immediate family members. Buyers must be at least 21, unless they complete a Vermont hunter safety course or are in the military or law

Good for them! There is certainly NOTHING scary in any of that legislation. It fairly deals with the hunting issue and allowing immediate family members to transfer ownership without a background check.
So what's the problem with ANY of this?

Again, when are the police giving up their magazines of higher capacity than allowed by this law?

Well now, since one of the arguments by idiots like you is that if you put restrictions on who in general public can own this type of weapon, then criminals will still have this type of weapon. So the police should also be allowed to match the firepower of the criminals. Then again, maybe that is a concern of yours. LOL

Why shouldn't everyone be able to match the firepower of the criminals?

There is nothing more insidious than a government that doesn't enforce the laws equally between government actors and non-government actors.

But since you are a government power cocksucker and wish to force people via government to do things in general, I'm not surprised by your statement.

Everyone should have the same firepower as military and police ?

Sure.....why not? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Humorme]

Everyone should have the same firepower as military and police ?

Everyone should have access to the same equipment that any law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over them has AND which any military unit which can be brought to bear against them has access to.

Adding to that, back in 1958 the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual had no Right to own a sawed off shotgun because:

"does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument."

Sooooo.... Those weapons that would, most likely be used by militia, would be the most protected.

 

[Pop23]

How many here think the criminals will follow this new restrictive law? Raise your hands please!

Well it makes it harder for them now doesn’t it.

Should we not try to stop illegal immigrants ? Since they will come anyway?

How so? You never explained this

 

[Pop23]

Everyone should have the same firepower as military and police ?

Everyone should have access to the same equipment that any law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over them has AND which any military unit which can be brought to bear against them has access to.

Adding to that, back in 1958 the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual had no Right to own a sawed off shotgun because:

"does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument."

Sooooo.... Those weapons that would, most likely be used by militia, would be the most protected.

The statement in 1958 makes no sense. In close quarters, in an urban setting, a sawed off makes complete sense, But then again, the militia would likely just saw the barrel off anyway.