Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
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.
A misnomer for people control. Isn't it funny that a state can make it far harder for a man to get a hunting rifle than a country makes it for a person to run for and hold office to be president of the United States?!
That is not correct. My thought process goes much deeper than what you have suggested. Don't confuse my argument for inalienable rights with my constitutional law arguments. Keep them separated.Yet under your interpretation of the 14th, States would be allowed to infringe on those rights.
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.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
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.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
aren't they?
Can't afford the permit?
Can't pass the restrictive background check, for one reason or another.
(if you can pass the background check, do you still pass the Taxawhosits permit check?)
Is the permit retroactive?
if I, in a moment of insanity, move from NH to Mass, do I need permits to own firearms I've owned or years/decades?
Or will they take them from me if I dont' have the appropriate paperwork?
(is there a possibility of being sent to a reeducation camp, or just the standard Concentration camp?)
That is not correct. My thought process goes much deeper than what you have suggested. Don't confuse my argument for inalienable rights with my constitutional law arguments. Keep them separated.Yet under your interpretation of the 14th, States would be allowed to infringe on those rights.
What I am saying is that the 2nd Amendment appears to be a legal bar on Congressional action, if you look at the plain meaning of the terms:
1. Because States need a militia.
2. The right shall not be infringed (by Congress).
Simple. Non-convoluted. Not subject to spin or twist.
The federal government was created for very limited purposes of common defense, common currency, and to allow for fair commerce between the citizens of the states with each other.
Your state government should not infringe on your arms right because you, as a human have the inalienable right to exercise such a right as long as you are not intruding on the rights of others. You should have the power to better control your state government than trying to fuck with citizens of 49 other States. One step at a time.
In Texas, I have to fight with 26 million other people. If the federal government has the power to infringe on my right to arms, I am fighting against 350 million people to preserve the right, many of whom are gun-grabbing communist shits who deserve to die.
Let's remove the unconstitutional and immoral power from the federal government first.
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.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
You are.
Yes we do care of the law abiding poor can own a gun. Where they have to live they probably need it the most. The licensing fees, course fees, and other fees add up to hundreds of dollars and more.
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.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
aren't they?
Can't afford the permit?
Can't pass the restrictive background check, for one reason or another.
(if you can pass the background check, do you still pass the Taxawhosits permit check?)
Is the permit retroactive?
if I, in a moment of insanity, move from NH to Mass, do I need permits to own firearms I've owned or years/decades?
Or will they take them from me if I dont' have the appropriate paperwork?
(is there a possibility of being sent to a reeducation camp, or just the standard Concentration camp?)
Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.
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.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
aren't they?
Can't afford the permit?
Can't pass the restrictive background check, for one reason or another.
(if you can pass the background check, do you still pass the Taxawhosits permit check?)
Is the permit retroactive?
if I, in a moment of insanity, move from NH to Mass, do I need permits to own firearms I've owned or years/decades?
Or will they take them from me if I dont' have the appropriate paperwork?
(is there a possibility of being sent to a reeducation camp, or just the standard Concentration camp?)
Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.
I believe in allowing people, poor or rich, to be able to defend themselves, and the constitutional right to own the tools to do so.
When do you apply the same standard to voting?
When does the push for having a permit to take advantage of that right?
Then we can get permits to speech, the press, assembly, etc.
(yes, yes, I know there are some restrictions on those already. but NOT like what Mass is doing to gun owners)
What other rights do you believe we need permits for?
Same for voting, right?Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.
Because you are being inconsistent and we are ALL demonstrating your lack of principles and inconsistency.This thread is about GUNS! Why are you trying to divert and hijack this thread? Should I report you?
That would be true if states didn't have constitutions, but again, don't lose focus on my position.f the States are not required to follow the 2nd, then they CAN ban firearm ownership and the only recourse is revolution.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
aren't they?
Can't afford the permit?
Can't pass the restrictive background check, for one reason or another.
(if you can pass the background check, do you still pass the Taxawhosits permit check?)
Is the permit retroactive?
if I, in a moment of insanity, move from NH to Mass, do I need permits to own firearms I've owned or years/decades?
Or will they take them from me if I dont' have the appropriate paperwork?
(is there a possibility of being sent to a reeducation camp, or just the standard Concentration camp?)
Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.
I believe in allowing people, poor or rich, to be able to defend themselves, and the constitutional right to own the tools to do so.
When do you apply the same standard to voting?
When does the push for having a permit to take advantage of that right?
Then we can get permits to speech, the press, assembly, etc.
(yes, yes, I know there are some restrictions on those already. but NOT like what Mass is doing to gun owners)
What other rights do you believe we need permits for?
This thread is about GUNS! Why are you trying to divert and hijack this thread? Should I report you?
That would be true if states didn't have constitutions, but again, don't lose focus on my position.f the States are not required to follow the 2nd, then they CAN ban firearm ownership and the only recourse is revolution.
The federal government cannot regulate guns or arms in general.
Start there. What happens if that is universally accepted?
In Texas, we have some work to do to overturn some state statues, that appear to be untouched solely because the state is making peace officers enforce federal law. I am quite certain that I could get lots more freedom if Texas was unburdened by illegal federal authority.
Understand?
If you are waiting for the federal government to come and save you, forget it. They won't do shit.
No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.
This is obvious.
What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.
There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.
There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.
The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.
You are making your intentions clear.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
aren't they?
Can't afford the permit?
Can't pass the restrictive background check, for one reason or another.
(if you can pass the background check, do you still pass the Taxawhosits permit check?)
Is the permit retroactive?
if I, in a moment of insanity, move from NH to Mass, do I need permits to own firearms I've owned or years/decades?
Or will they take them from me if I dont' have the appropriate paperwork?
(is there a possibility of being sent to a reeducation camp, or just the standard Concentration camp?)
Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.
I believe in allowing people, poor or rich, to be able to defend themselves, and the constitutional right to own the tools to do so.
When do you apply the same standard to voting?
When does the push for having a permit to take advantage of that right?
Then we can get permits to speech, the press, assembly, etc.
(yes, yes, I know there are some restrictions on those already. but NOT like what Mass is doing to gun owners)
What other rights do you believe we need permits for?
This thread is about GUNS! Why are you trying to divert and hijack this thread? Should I report you?
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.
Who's talking about "disarming"?
aren't they?
Can't afford the permit?
Can't pass the restrictive background check, for one reason or another.
(if you can pass the background check, do you still pass the Taxawhosits permit check?)
Is the permit retroactive?
if I, in a moment of insanity, move from NH to Mass, do I need permits to own firearms I've owned or years/decades?
Or will they take them from me if I dont' have the appropriate paperwork?
(is there a possibility of being sent to a reeducation camp, or just the standard Concentration camp?)
Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.
I believe in allowing people, poor or rich, to be able to defend themselves, and the constitutional right to own the tools to do so.
When do you apply the same standard to voting?
When does the push for having a permit to take advantage of that right?
Then we can get permits to speech, the press, assembly, etc.
(yes, yes, I know there are some restrictions on those already. but NOT like what Mass is doing to gun owners)
What other rights do you believe we need permits for?
This thread is about GUNS! Why are you trying to divert and hijack this thread? Should I report you?
My reply WAS about guns.
I also pointed out the slippery slope you might have missed.
