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.
Everything you just cited, applied to me here in Florida when I bought my gun.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 forget that this is Massachusetts where the government doesn't want you to defend yourself at allResidents 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.
Why would the State care what weapon it's Citizen uses to defend themselves against Rape or Murder?
Why would the State pass a law that is completely reliant on criminals to adhere to it?
You know what's stupid?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?
You have never proved this once in the 400 times you have repeated it.Not in our Second Amendment. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
What is the price to pay in Maryland when the drug dealers, gang bangers and criminals don't follow the law?Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.
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?
The Natural right is to be able to defend yourself and your family by the same means as those that a criminal will use.Where is the voting held as a Natural Right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed? Where is voting even mentioned in the Constitution?You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .
You realize there is more to the constitution AFTER the 2nd . Try reading it .
Where does the con mention “natural rights”? What’s “natural” about a firearm?
The Natural right is to be able to defend yourself and your family by the same means as those that a criminal will use.Where is the voting held as a Natural Right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed? Where is voting even mentioned in the Constitution?You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .
You realize there is more to the constitution AFTER the 2nd . Try reading it .
Where does the con mention “natural rights”? What’s “natural” about a firearm?
Why doesn't it work in Maryland or D.C.?nope, maybe they just know what works in their State...Massachusetts 1.2% gun murder rate - one of the absolute lowest in the Nation.... maybe they know what is sensible laws for their own State?
Maybe they just have a lower number of gang bangers, and suicides?
Again...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?
You haven’t correlated the laws to guns being any safer. We have asked however you provide absolutely nothing.
Mass has some of the toughest laws , and in turn , Lowest gun crimes .
Again...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?
You haven’t correlated the laws to guns being any safer. We have asked however you provide absolutely nothing.
Mass has some of the toughest laws , and in turn , Lowest gun crimes .
Then why does it not work in Maryland?
I've owned firearms since 1969.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.
I would also require insurance so that any innocent person who is hurt by that gun isn't forced to pay the extremely expensive medical bills themselves.
People should be able to pay for all the damage they do to innocent people with their gun. That means insurance.
Innocent people aren't the ones who should pay the bills caused by someone else's gun.
Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia may be infringed, when Only for the cause of natural rights, not the security of our free States, or the Union.Wonderful.all you have, is a fallacy of false cause via a fallacy of composition.You think it says this:It says, well regulated militia are Necessary and shall not be InfringedAnd 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?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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.Yes in the second amendment. Right here:Not in our Second Amendment. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.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…The Context is what is Necessary to the security of a free State.Read it in the context of the era you silly little fuckerall 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.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
That's all people, not just the ones in a well-regulated militia.
Too bad the "well-regulated" part was neither a requirement of the operative clause, nor a synomym for "organized" as you suggest.nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.
Then Constitutionally amend it!The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil. About as meaningful today as trilobites.
Nowhere does the 2nd say that the whole or entire people must be well regulated, nor does it condition the limitation it places on Congressional action on the militia being well-regulated (meaning properly functioning) or necessary.Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; the unorganized militia may be infringed, when Only for the cause of natural rights, not the security of our free States, or the Union.
Yes, it is. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary. Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.Too bad the "well-regulated" part was neither a requirement of the operative clause, nor a synomym for "organized" as you suggest.nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.
Because X, we are doing Y.
Because militia are necessary, we are not taking weapons from people.
That is the absolute most obvious interpretation. Keep twisting to meet your bullshit, communist agenda.
How can states constitutions protect natural rights when the fed gov is infringing on them?
Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.
To the security of a free State, not a condition on the right to weapons.Yes, it is. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary.
