Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Pop23]

God bless Massachusetts!

Especially Plymouth Rock.

 

[Lakhota]

God bless Massachusetts!

Especially Plymouth Rock.

No, not Devil's Rock.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, they got a million of em! and as soon as a late night comic uses one, they will be back

All this bullshit when they could just amend the constitution.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, they got a million of em! and as soon as a late night comic uses one, they will be back

All this bullshit when they could just amend the constitution.

But none of them can come up with what that would accomplish. It's like they just like to hear themselves talk.

 

[Flash]

The state of that asshole John Kerry and Indian Princess Liesalot refuses to allow the transfer of CMP Colt Model 1911 military war relics.

These pistols are collectables and were used to defeat Nazis and Communists . The Feds released the 1911s to the CMP but if you live in the Commie state of Mass you don't get one.

They will cost from $850-1050. Expensive for a handgun to be used in robbing a 7-11. If you want a cheap handgun for a crime you can steal one or buy one for a 4th of that amount. Your profit margin will be higher.

Also, in order to get one you need to go through TWO background checks but that is not good enough for the anti gun nuts of Mass.

 

[Likkmee]

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.

OTOH they could just go to any gin mill / bar, get a couple grams of coke, some heroin, a bag of weed and a BJ from some skank. The next morning he could hook up, get a 9mm and a full auto. All it takes is cash.
OH. Go ahead and add drug testing to the ones doing it by your beloved book. It'll help to disable more of them from defending themselves against the person I just described.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does. that which is declared Necessary to the security of a free State shall not be Infringed, w

What the fuck does that mean?

I swear to fucking Thor, you never explain ANYTHING. YOU JUST REPEAT SHIT.

EXPLAIN IT DUMBFUCK.

A - means one or sigpngular

Well-regulated - means properly functioning

militia - means a civilian army

Being - it is

Necessary - required

For- in favor of

The - the

Security - safety

Of - of

A- one

Free - liberated. Or don't cost nothing

State- a society organized under a government

The - the

Right - inalienable liberty that exists as part of an individual's being.

Of - of

The- the

People- individuals

To - to

Keep- possess

And - also

Bear - carry, hold. A big hairy mammal.

Arms- weapons

Shall - must

Not - not

Be - am, is are, was, were, become, feel, seem etc.

Infringed - limited, reduced, diminidhed


Now, reconstruct that to explai what the fuck you think it means.

nobody takes the right wing seriously. all they have is fallacy and appeals to ignorance. some on the left find it literally, incredible, that the right wing can be, "that dumb", and must be doing it on purpose.

 

[danielpalos]

States have the power to regulate arms.

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

 

[danielpalos]

We should have no security problems in our free States. We have a Second Amendment.

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?

 

[danielpalos]

I am starting to run out of absurd possibilities that make more sense than danielpalos' buttfucked interpretation.

nobody takes the right wing seriously; they are incompetent in the public domain, to prove it.

 

[danielpalos]

I am starting to run out of absurd possibilities that make more sense than danielpalos' buttfucked interpretation.

He should just post "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed."

That one is only off by one word.

The security if a free State is the context not natural rights. no amount of twisted, right wing logic can change that legal fact.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, they got a million of em! and as soon as a late night comic uses one, they will be back

All this bullshit when they could just amend the constitution.

there is nothing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land; only right wing, incompetence.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

To be fair, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand 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

So, how does that help you in whatever the fuck your argument is? I still don't get it, because you don't understand it enough to explain yourself. You need to get your professor on here to explain the talking points you have been parroting.

 

[danielpalos]

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

To be fair, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand 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

So, how does that help you in whatever the fuck your argument is? I still don't get it, because you don't understand it enough to explain yourself. You need to get your professor on here to explain the talking points you have been parroting.

"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

What do you think that means, and how does it apply in our Second Amendment?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"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

What do you think that means, and how does it apply in our Second Amendment?

Well, let's see.

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

peo·ple
ˈpēpəl/
noun

1. 1.
   human beings in general or considered collectively.
   "the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
   synonyms: human beings, persons, individuals, humans, mortals, (living) souls, personages, men, women, and children;
   informalfolks
   "crowds of people"
   • 
     
     
     
   • 
     
     
     
   • 
     
     
     
   • 
     
     
   • 
     
2. 2.
   the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.
   "the native peoples of Canada"
   synonyms: race, (ethnic) group, tribe, clan
   "the peoples of Africa"

verb

1. 1.
   (of a particular group of people) inhabit (an area or place).
   "an arid mountain region peopled by warring clans"
   synonyms: populate, settle (in), colonize, inhabit, live in, occupy; More
   

The militia is made up of the people. If you are trying to spin George Mason's words to conflate them with the language of the 2nd Amendment, you can stop right now.

When they use the word "militia" they are referring to the civil force. When they use the word people, they are NOT referring to the militia. Each word, as used must be given meaning in relationship to other words.

You are trying to make "militia" as used in the prefatory clause interchangeable with "people" in the operative clause. If they intended the same word, we must assume that they would have used the same word.

Even if you did that, you argument falls apart. You would write it:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But, that would also mean that I could write it this way:

"A well-regulated people, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But, apparently, you further misunderstand and misuse the term well-regulated.

What do you think it means?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is more likely the intent?

Congress has the power to take away all weapons from everyone except from those who are in an organized militia.

or.

Congress shall not disarm people, because people need weapons to serve in the militia.

Which one of those makes more sense, DAN?

 

[danielpalos]

"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

What do you think that means, and how does it apply in our Second Amendment?

Well, let's see.

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

peo·ple
ˈpēpəl/
noun

1. 1.
   human beings in general or considered collectively.
   "the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
   synonyms: human beings, persons, individuals, humans, mortals, (living) souls, personages, men, women, and children;
   informalfolks
   "crowds of people"
   • 
     
     
     
   • 
     
     
     
   • 
     
     
     
   • 
     
     
2. 2.
   the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.
   "the native peoples of Canada"
   synonyms: race, (ethnic) group, tribe, clan
   "the peoples of Africa"

verb

1. 1.
   (of a particular group of people) inhabit (an area or place).
   "an arid mountain region peopled by warring clans"
   synonyms: populate, settle (in), colonize, inhabit, live in, occupy; More

The militia is made up of the people. If you are trying to spin George Mason's words to conflate them with the language of the 2nd Amendment, you can stop right now.

When they use the word "militia" they are referring to the civil force. When they use the word people, they are NOT referring to the militia. Each word, as used must be given meaning in relationship to other words.

You are trying to make "militia" as used in the prefatory clause interchangeable with "people" in the operative clause. If they intended the same word, we must assume that they would have used the same word.

Even if you did that, you argument falls apart. You would write it:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But, that would also mean that I could write it this way:

"A well-regulated people, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But, apparently, you further misunderstand and misuse the term well-regulated.

What do you think it means?

this was established as the common law for the common defense, with the ratification of our federal Constitution. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of it.

"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

 

[danielpalos]

What is more likely the intent?

Congress has the power to take away all weapons from everyone except from those who are in an organized militia.

or.

Congress shall not disarm people, because people need weapons to serve in the militia.

Which one of those makes more sense, DAN?

The Congressional intent and purpose is in the first clause; no amount of Judicial activism, can change that legal fact in our Republic.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

this was established as the common law for the common defense, with the ratification of our federal Constitution. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of it.

STOP USING YOUR GODDAMN BULLSHIT BUZZWORDS THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

What was established? Explain it in FULL detail. You are making it more confusing.

 

[Pilot1]

The purpose of the Second Amendment was for THE PEOPLE to retain the ultimate power over a tyrannical government. It was for the People to retain freedom. Government was meant to be a necessary evil, not an all controlling, all encompassing entity.