Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[danielpalos]

Every dictionary definition supports my contention and specifically not Yours.

Dictionaries v. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

I will go with the Court on this one. So will EVERYBODY else.

Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our Republic; any Thing else, is simply activism, Judicial or otherwise.

 

[Papageorgio]

The People and The Militia are plural, not Individual, every time we have to quibble meaning.

You cite to no sources on the intent of the framers. We do.

"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.

I can't lose; every dictionary supports my contention and not Yours.

too bad it isn't about Socialism.

I’m glad courts uphold your definitions. At least we have smart judges.

 

[Papageorgio]

Very simple, the right of the people shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment allows me to purchase a gun if I so choose.

That doesn't prevent states from regulating it.

Who said differently? The right of the people shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment allows me to purchase a gun if I so choose.

Buy all you want. States can still regulate them.

Interesting the left isn't concerned about states rights when Arizona wanted to enforce their immigration laws, nor are they for states rights concerning marriage, abortion and lax gun control. I believe the states have those rights including gun control, marriage, abortion, immigration and so on.

Funny. Tell it to the federal government. Give Trump a call...

So you support Kansas’ right to not allow gays to adopt? Lol!

 

[danielpalos]

The People and The Militia are plural, not Individual, every time we have to quibble meaning.

You cite to no sources on the intent of the framers. We do.

"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.

I can't lose; every dictionary supports my contention and not Yours.

too bad it isn't about Socialism.

I’m glad courts uphold your definitions. At least we have smart judges.

Judges don't make dictionary definitions. DC v Heller could be overturned on simple legal error. All I need is, Standing.

 

[Papageorgio]

The People and The Militia are plural, not Individual, every time we have to quibble meaning.

You cite to no sources on the intent of the framers. We do.

"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.

I can't lose; every dictionary supports my contention and not Yours.

too bad it isn't about Socialism.

I’m glad courts uphold your definitions. At least we have smart judges.

Judges don't make dictionary definitions. DC v Heller could be overturned on simple legal error. All I need is, Standing.

Which you don't have, so you still have nothing, nor will you get any, just like to other causes you pretend to fight for but have yet to do anything. Did you get federal minimum wage to $15 yet? Did you get the government to pay you for not working yet? You are just all wind and nothing else.

 

[danielpalos]

The People and The Militia are plural, not Individual, every time we have to quibble meaning.

You cite to no sources on the intent of the framers. We do.

"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.

I can't lose; every dictionary supports my contention and not Yours.

too bad it isn't about Socialism.

I’m glad courts uphold your definitions. At least we have smart judges.

Judges don't make dictionary definitions. DC v Heller could be overturned on simple legal error. All I need is, Standing.

Which you don't have, so you still have nothing, nor will you get any, just like to other causes you pretend to fight for but have yet to do anything. Did you get federal minimum wage to $15 yet? Did you get the government to pay you for not working yet? You are just all wind and nothing else.

I only don't have Standing; i already know I have the supreme argument. The right wing can Only have an Inferior argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

You cite to no sources on the intent of the framers. We do.

"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.

I can't lose; every dictionary supports my contention and not Yours.

too bad it isn't about Socialism.

I’m glad courts uphold your definitions. At least we have smart judges.

Judges don't make dictionary definitions. DC v Heller could be overturned on simple legal error. All I need is, Standing.

Which you don't have, so you still have nothing, nor will you get any, just like to other causes you pretend to fight for but have yet to do anything. Did you get federal minimum wage to $15 yet? Did you get the government to pay you for not working yet? You are just all wind and nothing else.

I only don't have Standing; i already know I have the supreme argument. The right wing can Only have an Inferior argument.

You have no argument, you have no standing otherwise you would prove otherwise and you haven't. Face it you are all talk and nothing else. I can own a gun if I choose, you can claim otherwise, I don't mind.

 

[danielpalos]

I can't lose; every dictionary supports my contention and not Yours.

too bad it isn't about Socialism.

I’m glad courts uphold your definitions. At least we have smart judges.

Judges don't make dictionary definitions. DC v Heller could be overturned on simple legal error. All I need is, Standing.

Which you don't have, so you still have nothing, nor will you get any, just like to other causes you pretend to fight for but have yet to do anything. Did you get federal minimum wage to $15 yet? Did you get the government to pay you for not working yet? You are just all wind and nothing else.

I only don't have Standing; i already know I have the supreme argument. The right wing can Only have an Inferior argument.

You have no argument, you have no standing otherwise you would prove otherwise and you haven't. Face it you are all talk and nothing else. I can own a gun if I choose, you can claim otherwise, I don't mind.

so what; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

it shouldn't be about banning guns, but about ensuring the security of our free States, even if it means, mustering the California State Militia (a militia you can rely on, regardless of what our federales are doing).

 

[Papageorgio]

I’m glad courts uphold your definitions. At least we have smart judges.

Judges don't make dictionary definitions. DC v Heller could be overturned on simple legal error. All I need is, Standing.

Which you don't have, so you still have nothing, nor will you get any, just like to other causes you pretend to fight for but have yet to do anything. Did you get federal minimum wage to $15 yet? Did you get the government to pay you for not working yet? You are just all wind and nothing else.

I only don't have Standing; i already know I have the supreme argument. The right wing can Only have an Inferior argument.

You have no argument, you have no standing otherwise you would prove otherwise and you haven't. Face it you are all talk and nothing else. I can own a gun if I choose, you can claim otherwise, I don't mind.

so what; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

it shouldn't be about banning guns, but about ensuring the security of our free States, even if it means, mustering the California State Militia (a militia you can rely on, regardless of what our federales are doing).

Still nothing, why do you post nothing over and over again?

 

[danielpalos]

Judges don't make dictionary definitions. DC v Heller could be overturned on simple legal error. All I need is, Standing.

Which you don't have, so you still have nothing, nor will you get any, just like to other causes you pretend to fight for but have yet to do anything. Did you get federal minimum wage to $15 yet? Did you get the government to pay you for not working yet? You are just all wind and nothing else.

I only don't have Standing; i already know I have the supreme argument. The right wing can Only have an Inferior argument.

You have no argument, you have no standing otherwise you would prove otherwise and you haven't. Face it you are all talk and nothing else. I can own a gun if I choose, you can claim otherwise, I don't mind.

so what; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

it shouldn't be about banning guns, but about ensuring the security of our free States, even if it means, mustering the California State Militia (a militia you can rely on, regardless of what our federales are doing).

Still nothing, why do you post nothing over and over again?

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Really? You think Peolle in the “organized militia” are not also people who valuse the inalienable right?

And, the “organized militia” (national guard) is not really a militia, despite Congresses’s bullshit 1903 law. That is a standing army.

 

[Papageorgio]

Which you don't have, so you still have nothing, nor will you get any, just like to other causes you pretend to fight for but have yet to do anything. Did you get federal minimum wage to $15 yet? Did you get the government to pay you for not working yet? You are just all wind and nothing else.

I only don't have Standing; i already know I have the supreme argument. The right wing can Only have an Inferior argument.

You have no argument, you have no standing otherwise you would prove otherwise and you haven't. Face it you are all talk and nothing else. I can own a gun if I choose, you can claim otherwise, I don't mind.

so what; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

it shouldn't be about banning guns, but about ensuring the security of our free States, even if it means, mustering the California State Militia (a militia you can rely on, regardless of what our federales are doing).

Still nothing, why do you post nothing over and over again?

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Nothing to whine about, I can own a gun and you can't do crap about it.

 

[Trumpisgod25]

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

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.

You have absolutely no idea how gun control works do you. You ******* liberal snowflake

 

[Trumpisgod25]

This is fake news

 

[Lakhota]

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

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.

You have absolutely no idea how gun control works do you. You ******* liberal snowflake

Duh, what is so hard to understand about it?

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Really? You think Peolle in the “organized militia” are not also people who valuse the inalienable right?

And, the “organized militia” (national guard) is not really a militia, despite Congresses’s bullshit 1903 law. That is a standing army.

The point is, we have a Second Amendment and should have, No Security problems.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

I only don't have Standing; i already know I have the supreme argument. The right wing can Only have an Inferior argument.

You have no argument, you have no standing otherwise you would prove otherwise and you haven't. Face it you are all talk and nothing else. I can own a gun if I choose, you can claim otherwise, I don't mind.

so what; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

it shouldn't be about banning guns, but about ensuring the security of our free States, even if it means, mustering the California State Militia (a militia you can rely on, regardless of what our federales are doing).

Still nothing, why do you post nothing over and over again?

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Nothing to whine about, I can own a gun and you can't do crap about it.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[Papageorgio]

You have no argument, you have no standing otherwise you would prove otherwise and you haven't. Face it you are all talk and nothing else. I can own a gun if I choose, you can claim otherwise, I don't mind.

so what; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

it shouldn't be about banning guns, but about ensuring the security of our free States, even if it means, mustering the California State Militia (a militia you can rely on, regardless of what our federales are doing).

Still nothing, why do you post nothing over and over again?

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Nothing to whine about, I can own a gun and you can't do crap about it.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.

Doesn’t matter what you say.

 

[danielpalos]

so what; natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

it shouldn't be about banning guns, but about ensuring the security of our free States, even if it means, mustering the California State Militia (a militia you can rely on, regardless of what our federales are doing).

Still nothing, why do you post nothing over and over again?

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Nothing to whine about, I can own a gun and you can't do crap about it.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.

Doesn’t matter what you say.

I am merely, "parroting" our Second Amendment.

 

[Papageorgio]

Still nothing, why do you post nothing over and over again?

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Nothing to whine about, I can own a gun and you can't do crap about it.

I never said you couldn't. I only claim, well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.

Doesn’t matter what you say.

I am merely, "parroting" our Second Amendment.

That is all you do is parrot. We all have known that for awhile.