Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Pop23]

Residents of Massachusetts are at liberty to compel their elected officials to repeal or amend the State’s firearm regulatory measures through the political process.

Or seek through the judicial process to have the State’s firearm regulatory measures invalidated.

Currently the courts have upheld such laws as being Constitutional:

‘A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.’

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

There was once a time when Reagan conservatives respected “states’ rights,” given the response by conservatives in this thread, clearly that’s no longer the case.

Amen! It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

So, you can answer the question.

Why would you care what weapon your daughter used to fight off a rapist?

Would you care if it was State approved?

I sure wouldn’t care. The only one probably concerned would be the rapist

Look, dumbass, I fully support mentally competent people owning and carrying a weapon - if they meet ALL the federal and state legal requirements to do so.

Even AR-15s. Good to know. Then why are you supporting the Massachusetts law?

If your daughter used one in Massachusetts to fight off a rapist, would you care if it was state approved?

 

[Lakhota]

Residents of Massachusetts are at liberty to compel their elected officials to repeal or amend the State’s firearm regulatory measures through the political process.

Or seek through the judicial process to have the State’s firearm regulatory measures invalidated.

Currently the courts have upheld such laws as being Constitutional:

‘A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.’

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

There was once a time when Reagan conservatives respected “states’ rights,” given the response by conservatives in this thread, clearly that’s no longer the case.

Amen! It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

So, you can answer the question.

Why would you care what weapon your daughter used to fight off a rapist?

Would you care if it was State approved?

I sure wouldn’t care. The only one probably concerned would be the rapist

Look, dumbass, I fully support mentally competent people owning and carrying a weapon - if they meet ALL the federal and state legal requirements to do so.

Even AR-15s. Good to know. Then why are you supporting the Massachusetts law?

If your daughter used one in Massachusetts to fight off a rapist, would you care if it was state approved?

Not if AR-15s are illegal. Are you really that fucking stupid?

 

[Pop23]

Residents of Massachusetts are at liberty to compel their elected officials to repeal or amend the State’s firearm regulatory measures through the political process.

Or seek through the judicial process to have the State’s firearm regulatory measures invalidated.

Currently the courts have upheld such laws as being Constitutional:

‘A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.’

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

There was once a time when Reagan conservatives respected “states’ rights,” given the response by conservatives in this thread, clearly that’s no longer the case.

Amen! It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

So, you can answer the question.

Why would you care what weapon your daughter used to fight off a rapist?

Would you care if it was State approved?

I sure wouldn’t care. The only one probably concerned would be the rapist

Look, dumbass, I fully support mentally competent people owning and carrying a weapon - if they meet ALL the federal and state legal requirements to do so.

Even AR-15s. Good to know. Then why are you supporting the Massachusetts law?

If your daughter used one in Massachusetts to fight off a rapist, would you care if it was state approved?

Not if AR-15s are illegal. Are you really that fucking stupid?

I see, so if your daughter fought off a rapist with an AR-15, you would want her prosecuted.

 

[Pop23]

Kind of absurd that a State would have officially approved weapons that it’s citizens can defend themselves with.

Would appear the State is more worried about its criminals safety.

Odd to say the least.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

AR15s are here to stay. Crying won't make them go away.

You anti-freedom faggots should start worrying about machine guns. We're getting those back next.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

States' rights have nothing to do with this issue.

The Second Amendment explicitly identifies the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, not to the states; and forbids infringement of this right. Nothing about the Second Amendment allows for states to infringe this right, any more than it allows the federal government to infringe this right.

States do not have any right to violate the Constitutional rights of the people.

 

[danielpalos]

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 fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

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

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

no, it doesn't. our Second Amendment is very specific.

 

[Rustic]

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 fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

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

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Read it in the context of the era you silly little fucker

 

[danielpalos]

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 fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

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

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Read it in the context of the era you silly little fucker

The Context is what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Rustic]

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 fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

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

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Read it in the context of the era you silly little fucker

The Context is what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Firearm ownership is personal, that means it’s none of the fucking federal government business whatsoever. You control freaks need to stay out of peoples personal lives…

 

[danielpalos]

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 fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

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

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Read it in the context of the era you silly little fucker

The Context is what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Firearm ownership is personal, that means it’s none of the fucking federal government business whatsoever. You control freaks need to stay out of peoples personal lives…

Not in our Second Amendment. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Lakhota]

It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

States' rights have nothing to do with this issue.

The Second Amendment explicitly identifies the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, not to the states; and forbids infringement of this right. Nothing about the Second Amendment allows for states to infringe this right, any more than it allows the federal government to infringe this right.

States do not have any right to violate the Constitutional rights of the people.

Funny. Tell it to the states. Also, tell the states that are chipping away at Roe v. Wade the same thing about women's Constitutional right to have an abortion. Tell them to mind their own business. Let us know their answers...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Funny. Tell it to the states. Also, tell the states that are chipping away at Roe v. Wade the same thing about women's Constitutional right to have an abortion. Tell them to mind their own business. Let us know their answers...

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution which supports the “right” to kill a child in cold blood. The courts made this up out of nothing. It only goes to demonstrate the madness and depravity of the left wrong—the contortions to which it went to make up a murderous “Constitutional right” that is nowhere mentioned, hinted at, or implied in the actual text of the Constitution, while disparaging, diminishing, and denying a right which is explicitly stated and protected in the Constitution.

LIbEralism—as you and your ilk continue to vividly demonstrate—truly is a moral disease as well as a mental disease.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Residents of Massachusetts are at liberty to compel their elected officials to repeal or amend the State’s firearm regulatory measures through the political process.

Or seek through the judicial process to have the State’s firearm regulatory measures invalidated.

Currently the courts have upheld such laws as being Constitutional:

‘A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.’

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

There was once a time when Reagan conservatives respected “states’ rights,” given the response by conservatives in this thread, clearly that’s no longer the case.

Amen! It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

Exactly.

Conservatives are all for “states’ rights” when they want to discriminate against gay Americans or compel women to give birth against their will.

But “states’ rights” goes out the window when it comes to guns.

Such is the hypocritical, inconsistent right – conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Liberals correctly understand, of course, that the Constitution, its case law, Federal laws, and rulings of the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land, with state laws and measures subordinate to that, where state laws and measures in conflict with the Constitution and its case law are invalid.

And Liberals acknowledge Heller/McDonald as the supreme law of the land, they accept and respect current Second Amendment jurisprudence, understand that the Second Amendment right is an individual right, and that citizens have the right to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Residents of Massachusetts are at liberty to compel their elected officials to repeal or amend the State’s firearm regulatory measures through the political process.

Or seek through the judicial process to have the State’s firearm regulatory measures invalidated.

Currently the courts have upheld such laws as being Constitutional:

‘A federal district court judge in Boston has upheld the state's ban on assault weapons – AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines – finding that the issue is not a constitutional matter but one for each state to determine on its own politically.

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.’

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines

There was once a time when Reagan conservatives respected “states’ rights,” given the response by conservatives in this thread, clearly that’s no longer the case.

Amen! It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

Exactly.

Conservatives are all for “states’ rights” when they want to discriminate against gay Americans or compel women to give birth against their will.

But “states’ rights” goes out the window when it comes to guns.

Such is the hypocritical, inconsistent right – conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Liberals correctly understand, of course, that the Constitution, its case law, Federal laws, and rulings of the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land, with state laws and measures subordinate to that, where state laws and measures in conflict with the Constitution and its case law are invalid.

And Liberals acknowledge Heller/McDonald as the supreme law of the land, they accept and respect current Second Amendment jurisprudence, understand that the Second Amendment right is an individual right, and that citizens have the right to possess handguns pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Well, guess what you stupid prick.

It was your left wing (because you are not a liberal...liberals are cool...you are left wing....or IOW an asshole), fucktard FDR that put together a court that promoted the concept of Seective Incorporation. That is what the NRA has banked on for decades.

If FDR had been more of an Amerian, we might have states passing stricter gun control laws and not being challenged.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's funny to watch NaziCons oscillate/vacillate between the U.S. Constitution and states' rights to defend their agenda du jour.

States' rights have nothing to do with this issue.

The Second Amendment explicitly identifies the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, not to the states; and forbids infringement of this right. Nothing about the Second Amendment allows for states to infringe this right, any more than it allows the federal government to infringe this right.

States do not have any right to violate the Constitutional rights of the people.

Funny. Tell it to the states. Also, tell the states that are chipping away at Roe v. Wade the same thing about women's Constitutional right to have an abortion. Tell them to mind their own business. Let us know their answers...

There is no permanent constiutional right to an abortion.

States have been hammering Roe and the pro-abortion crowd won't take a case before SCOTUS because they are fucking scared to death Roe will be overturned alltogether.

Of course at that point about 30 states will make it legal to have an abortion and there should be nothing to challenge that.

That is their business.

Harry Blackmunn should be hung.

 

[bgrouse]

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 fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

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

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Wonderful.

But what does it have to do with the right to bear arms? I wasn't aware this was a thread concerning the necessity and regulation of the militia. I could have sworn it was about gun laws and gun rights.

 

[bgrouse]

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 fucking moron?

all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.

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

Which subset of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.

Only the right wing, is full of fallacy instead of any reason.

Read it in the context of the era you silly little fucker

The Context is what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Firearm ownership is personal, that means it’s none of the fucking federal government business whatsoever. You control freaks need to stay out of peoples personal lives…

Not in our Second Amendment. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Yes in the second amendment. Right here:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

That's all people, not just the ones in a well-regulated militia.

 

[Lakhota]

Go Massachusetts!