Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[danielpalos]

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary

...to the security of a free state. That has nothing to do with the right to keep arms.

Learn English, danny. You suck at it.

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States.

You make little sense. Maybe your gerbil understands you, but humans don't

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is involved.

Because you express an opinion does not make it a valid opinion.

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

 

[Pop23]

better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!

Is that English? What are you saying?

No comrende!

I think he runs this shit through google translate.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is i

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

 

[danielpalos]

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently.

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

No irony at all.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You've not read all the amendments of the "Bill of Rights" have you?

Our Second Amendment, secures that States' sovereign right.

Then it would appear outside the Bill of Rights.

lol. States' rights are still rights.

 

[protectionist]

You forget that this is Massachusetts where the government doesn't want you to defend yourself at all
In the words of their former AG Martha Coakley

" We try to discourage self help"

She was quoted as saying this in response to an incident where a father punched a would be pedophile in the face after that pervert made advances on his young son in a public rest room

Meaning you are not supposed to defend yourself, your children or your property in the Peoples' Republic of MA.

Case in point a young father of three and self employed contractor stopped a piece of shit knife wielding drug addict from breaking into his truck and stealing his tools was almost charged with a felony and the possibility of 5 years in prison for stopping and detaining the piece of shit thief. The only thing that stopped the actual pressing of charges was the public outrage at the possibility of this upstanding citizen going to jail for 5 years for stopping a piece of shit thief. FYI the good citizen who stopped this piece of shit was unarmed when he did so.

So not only do you have to get permission from an unelected law enforcement officer to get a gun you can't even defend your property from a piece of shit thief without the possibility facing felony charges

This is why Dr Michael Savage entitled his book >> "Liberalism is a metal disorder"
One has to look no further than the insane case of Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, and nut job criminal Willie Horton.

 

[Pop23]

...to the security of a free state. That has nothing to do with the right to keep arms.

Learn English, danny. You suck at it.

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States.

You make little sense. Maybe your gerbil understands you, but humans don't

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is involved.

Because you express an opinion does not make it a valid opinion.

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

Great, another baseless opinion. We are used to it with you.

 

[Papageorgio]

It was and it went against the District of Columbia, it upheld that individual citizens had a right to bear arms. The court found that six private citizens had a right to own a fire arm thus your idea that DC vs Heller somehow restricts fire arms in the hands of a private citizen is absolutely false.

What is the police power and what should it apply to, regarding Arms?

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

Not controversial to me.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is i

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

Do you know what "literally" means in English?

It literally DOES NOT say thatt, in English. Which you do not properly understand.

 

[Pop23]

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

No irony at all.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You've not read all the amendments of the "Bill of Rights" have you?

Our Second Amendment, secures that States' sovereign right.

Then it would appear outside the Bill of Rights.

lol. States' rights are still rights.

lol, can't use a map to check on my rights though. Try to make sense.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States.

You make little sense. Maybe your gerbil understands you, but humans don't

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is involved.

Because you express an opinion does not make it a valid opinion.

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

Great, another baseless opinion. We are used to it with you.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller, supports my opinion and not yours.

 

[Papageorgio]

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

defense of self and property, are considered natural rights and are recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

Are you claiming 200 plus years of judicial activism?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our federal Constitution is express, not implied.

Are you claiming 200 plus years of judicial activism? Sure seems that way to me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You forget that this is Massachusetts where the government doesn't want you to defend yourself at all
In the words of their former AG Martha Coakley

" We try to discourage self help"

She was quoted as saying this in response to an incident where a father punched a would be pedophile in the face after that pervert made advances on his young son in a public rest room

Meaning you are not supposed to defend yourself, your children or your property in the Peoples' Republic of MA.

Case in point a young father of three and self employed contractor stopped a piece of shit knife wielding drug addict from breaking into his truck and stealing his tools was almost charged with a felony and the possibility of 5 years in prison for stopping and detaining the piece of shit thief. The only thing that stopped the actual pressing of charges was the public outrage at the possibility of this upstanding citizen going to jail for 5 years for stopping a piece of shit thief. FYI the good citizen who stopped this piece of shit was unarmed when he did so.

So not only do you have to get permission from an unelected law enforcement officer to get a gun you can't even defend your property from a piece of shit thief without the possibility facing felony charges

It's what happens when you allow government to be infested with those who value the interests of criminals above those of law-abiding citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

Do you know what "literally" means in English?

It literally DOES NOT say thatt, in English. Which you do not properly understand.

yes, it does. i have arguments, not, nothing but fallacy.

 

[Pop23]

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

Do you know what "literally" means in English?

It literally DOES NOT say thatt, in English. Which you do not properly understand.

You have to enjoy Danny's creativity though. He probably thinks a female has a Dick as well.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think he runs this shit through google translate.

No wonder he keeps getting it wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

defense of self and property, are considered natural rights and are recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

Are you claiming 200 plus years of judicial activism?

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.

Our federal Constitution is express, not implied.

Are you claiming 200 plus years of judicial activism? Sure seems that way to me.

Our federal Constitution has always been express, not implied.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

yes, it does. i have arguments, not, nothing but fallacy

Your double negative is confusing. Could you say that in English please?

 

[Lakhota]

Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?

Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.

You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .

It doesn't stop the left for wanting all to pay a tax to own a gun.

Isn't gun safety worth the price?

What is the price to pay in Maryland when the drug dealers, gang bangers and criminals don't follow the law?

The law in Maryland that requires you to have training and permits to own and possess firearms.

What is the price to pay to defend yourself from the criminals who do not get permits and training?

What is this price to pay Fauxcohontas?

What is the price we pay to defend ourselves against speeders and motor vehicle violators?

 

[Pop23]

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is i

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our federal Constitution has always been express, not implied.

Then, quit implying. It does not EXPRESSLY say what you think it says.