Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Lakhota]

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

I feel much better knowing that law-abiding citizens will go through leaps and bounds to acquire a gun. All while criminals simply bypass the program. This will go a long way toward reducing gun crime

You mean like speeders and motor vehicle violators?

 

[Lakhota]

“Their pro-gun policies have resulted in dead children, dead mothers and dead fathers,” says Democratic congressional candidate Pat Davis.

Congressional Candidate Says ‘F**k The NRA’ In New TV Ad

Praise Gawd. A politician with some balls.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You mean like speeders and motor vehicle violators?

You mean non-rights? Privileges?

 

[2aguy]

Congressional Candidate Says ‘F**k The NRA’ In New TV Ad

Praise Gawd. A politician with some balls.

Wow......he sure is tough, jumping on the NRA when the entire democrat party, hollywood, and democrat news organizations are jumping on the NRA...wow, that guy sure is tough.....


Too bad gun Rights voters remember ....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“Their pro-gun policies have resulted in dead children, dead mothers and dead fathers,” says Democratic congressional candidate Pat Davis.

Congressional Candidate Says ‘F**k The NRA’ In New TV Ad

Praise Gawd. A politician with some balls.

New Mexico.

No Texas Democrat would DARE say shit like that. They would never hold public office again.

 

[Likkmee]

So, the 2nd guarantees no security problems? Well, why do we have security problems? The 2nd didn't work....or you have misinterpreted it.

Which is more likely?

that which is declared Necessary to the security of a free State shall not be Infringed

Then it would say simply:

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.

In fact, it would look like someone copied and pasted the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in the wrong place and forgot about it having not proofread the sentence. Your argument, unfortunately, falls apart given that there was no "copy and paste" when this was written, you clown!

the people are the militia. now, do you understand?

Yes. OUR militia is well regulated( Militia=non felon gun owners who went through proper channels). The enemy is not. They run wild with impunity and the meatheads in blue are far too small in number and busy with important things like collecting revenues to defend anything other than their right to overtime while abusing the average citizen trying to go about his or her day.
"I'll need to cite you. No seat belt, turn signal out,loud mufflers,beads hanging from mirror $700". Meanwhile 2 houses are being burglarized and nobody is responding to the alarm and an old guy just got hit in the head and his wallet jacked 2 blocks away. But that doesn't allow for raises now does it ?
ONO. They arent patrolling over in the "dual citizen" encampment due to they themselves being sued-written up for " racial profiling"

you must be a republican; all i hear is excuses. We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.

NOOP. I'm a constitutional-ist. The repugnicant party are pieces of ******* shit like Cheney. Bushz. RayGun and other riff raff hiding behind Bibles, Flags, cowboy hats and other nonsense appealing to uneducated rednecks who continue to worship these idiots against their own best interests.I'm certainly NOT a democrat either.
I'm a guy that believes that all tax revenues go to benefit of the residents of the country FIRST. Then you can dole out whatever to trash like NK and IsNtReal and aids infested nigga nations if some whore vote seeker lives in a community full of their relatives. I also feel state by state law should ALWAYS rule over national oversight.
Due to the great satans financial situation; foreign aid should be 0.0.Leave them on their own NOT US.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but right wing propaganda. the second clause follows the context of the first clause. that is all. The militia and the people are plural, not individual. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

But, doesn't the "collective" or "plural" argument run contrary to the specific statements of the founders?

They ratified our Constitution, not the concept of natural rights.

 

[bgrouse]

Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for states to infringe the right thus addressed?

it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.

Then it would say:

the right of the well regulated militia of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But it doesn't. That red part exists only in your imagination and in the posts of people like me who like to ridicule retards like you.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

No, "people" is not the same as "militia." Try looking the two words up some time.

i did. the right wing usually has, nothing but fallacy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Let's say you are right for the sake of argument. Then the constitution would say this:

A well regulated whole people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even then, all it's saying is that well regulated people are necessary to the security of a free state, while the right of the people (meaning all people, not just the well regulated ones) shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say "the right of a well regulated people to keep and bear Arms."

English just isn't your thing, is it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

there is literally, no appeal to ignorance of the law in our Republic.

That literally makes no sense. What do you mean?

Laws are made of words; those words have meaning. The meaning of those those words is clear. Well regulated militia of the whole People, are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The second amendment is not a law

There are now laws contained within the Bill of Rights

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They ratified our Constitution, not the concept of natural rights.

But:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

 

[TheDude]

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

I feel much better knowing that law-abiding citizens will go through leaps and bounds to acquire a gun. All while criminals simply bypass the program. This will go a long way toward reducing gun crime

You mean like speeders and motor vehicle violators?

NOPE!

 

[bgrouse]

They ratified our Constitution, not the concept of natural rights.

But:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

It's almost like the the writers of the second amendment foresaw that some moron like danielpalos would try to twist the words into something they're not so they made it extra clear.

Almost.

Clearly, we have invented a better idiot that is immune to their efforts.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

“Their pro-gun policies have resulted in dead children, dead mothers and dead fathers,” says Democratic congressional candidate Pat Davis.

Congressional Candidate Says ‘F**k The NRA’ In New TV Ad

Praise Gawd. A politician with some balls.

He supports abortion. So much for any claim that he cares about human life.

And he's a ******. “New Mexico’s first openly-gay Member of Congress”.

And a traitor. “Support a bill to make President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program permanent for DREAMers registered now and for those who still live in the shadows.”

I can see why such a scumbag as yourself admires him.

 

[danielpalos]

it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.

Then it would say:

the right of the well regulated militia of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But it doesn't. That red part exists only in your imagination and in the posts of people like me who like to ridicule retards like you.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

No, "people" is not the same as "militia." Try looking the two words up some time.

i did. the right wing usually has, nothing but fallacy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Let's say you are right for the sake of argument. Then the constitution would say this:

A well regulated whole people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even then, all it's saying is that well regulated people are necessary to the security of a free state, while the right of the people (meaning all people, not just the well regulated ones) shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say "the right of a well regulated people to keep and bear Arms."

English just isn't your thing, is it?

You have only excuses, not results.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The People are the militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary. The unorganized militia of the whole People is nowhere, expressly declared Necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

there is literally, no appeal to ignorance of the law in our Republic.

That literally makes no sense. What do you mean?

Laws are made of words; those words have meaning. The meaning of those those words is clear. Well regulated militia of the whole People, are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The second amendment is not a law

There are now laws contained within the Bill of Rights

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself; thus, your right wing propaganda is simply rhetoric.

 

[danielpalos]

They ratified our Constitution, not the concept of natural rights.

But:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

Due Process applies; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

 

[bgrouse]

Then it would say:

the right of the well regulated militia of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But it doesn't. That red part exists only in your imagination and in the posts of people like me who like to ridicule retards like you.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

No, "people" is not the same as "militia." Try looking the two words up some time.

i did. the right wing usually has, nothing but fallacy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Let's say you are right for the sake of argument. Then the constitution would say this:

A well regulated whole people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even then, all it's saying is that well regulated people are necessary to the security of a free state, while the right of the people (meaning all people, not just the well regulated ones) shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say "the right of a well regulated people to keep and bear Arms."

English just isn't your thing, is it?

You have only excuses, not results.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The People are the militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary. The unorganized militia of the whole People is nowhere, expressly declared Necessary.

And your point is? I didn't say the second amendment declared the whole people and/or unorganized militia to be "necessary." Where did you even get that from and how does it relate to our debate?

What it DOES do is guarantee the right of the whole people and/or unorganized militia to bear arms.

Your malfunction seems to be your inability to accept that the people in the second amendment is unmodified and unlimited (it simply says, "the people," NOT "the ORGANIZED people" or "the GOVERNMENT people") and therefore guarantees the right to bear arms for the whole people, organized, regulated, unregulated, deregulated, and disorganized.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

No, "people" is not the same as "militia." Try looking the two words up some time.

i did. the right wing usually has, nothing but fallacy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Let's say you are right for the sake of argument. Then the constitution would say this:

A well regulated whole people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even then, all it's saying is that well regulated people are necessary to the security of a free state, while the right of the people (meaning all people, not just the well regulated ones) shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say "the right of a well regulated people to keep and bear Arms."

English just isn't your thing, is it?

You have only excuses, not results.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The People are the militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary. The unorganized militia of the whole People is nowhere, expressly declared Necessary.

And your point is? I didn't say the second amendment declared the whole people and/or unorganized militia to be "necessary." Where did you even get that from and how does it relate to our debate?

What it DOES do is guarantee the right of the whole people and/or unorganized militia to bear arms.

Your malfunction seems to be your inability to accept that the people in the second amendment is unmodified and unlimited (it simply says, "the people," NOT "the ORGANIZED people" or "the GOVERNMENT people") and therefore guarantees the right to bear arms for the whole people, organized, regulated, unregulated, deregulated, and disorganized.

No, it doesn't. It says, well regulated militia are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The People, refers to the Whole, not the Part.

 

[bgrouse]

No, "people" is not the same as "militia." Try looking the two words up some time.

i did. the right wing usually has, nothing but fallacy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Let's say you are right for the sake of argument. Then the constitution would say this:

A well regulated whole people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even then, all it's saying is that well regulated people are necessary to the security of a free state, while the right of the people (meaning all people, not just the well regulated ones) shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say "the right of a well regulated people to keep and bear Arms."

English just isn't your thing, is it?

You have only excuses, not results.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The People are the militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary. The unorganized militia of the whole People is nowhere, expressly declared Necessary.

And your point is? I didn't say the second amendment declared the whole people and/or unorganized militia to be "necessary." Where did you even get that from and how does it relate to our debate?

What it DOES do is guarantee the right of the whole people and/or unorganized militia to bear arms.

Your malfunction seems to be your inability to accept that the people in the second amendment is unmodified and unlimited (it simply says, "the people," NOT "the ORGANIZED people" or "the GOVERNMENT people") and therefore guarantees the right to bear arms for the whole people, organized, regulated, unregulated, deregulated, and disorganized.

It says, well regulated militia are Necessary and shall not be Infringed

You think it says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

When it actually says this:

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.

That's your problem. You're skipping over that blue part. Get it you ******* moron?

 

[Pop23]

No, "people" is not the same as "militia." Try looking the two words up some time.

i did. the right wing usually has, nothing but fallacy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Let's say you are right for the sake of argument. Then the constitution would say this:

A well regulated whole people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even then, all it's saying is that well regulated people are necessary to the security of a free state, while the right of the people (meaning all people, not just the well regulated ones) shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say "the right of a well regulated people to keep and bear Arms."

English just isn't your thing, is it?

You have only excuses, not results.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The People are the militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary. The unorganized militia of the whole People is nowhere, expressly declared Necessary.

And your point is? I didn't say the second amendment declared the whole people and/or unorganized militia to be "necessary." Where did you even get that from and how does it relate to our debate?

What it DOES do is guarantee the right of the whole people and/or unorganized militia to bear arms.

Your malfunction seems to be your inability to accept that the people in the second amendment is unmodified and unlimited (it simply says, "the people," NOT "the ORGANIZED people" or "the GOVERNMENT people") and therefore guarantees the right to bear arms for the whole people, organized, regulated, unregulated, deregulated, and disorganized.

No, it doesn't. It says, well regulated militia are Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The People, refers to the Whole, not the Part.

Repeating your failed understanding does not strengthen its case.

The founders did not apply an understanding of just the present time, or any given time that the “state” might be secure. They knew better than that.

They were forward thinkers and knew that any government can, and often will, rally its might against its own people.

The second exists as that warning.