Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[danielpalos]

nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.

Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.

The federal militia preempts State militias. States get what is left over.

 

[Pop23]

nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.

Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.

The federal militia preempts State militias. States get what is left over.

Good story Bro.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary.

To the security of a free State, not a condition on the right to weapons.

Only in extreme conditions; only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.

Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.

The federal militia preempts State militias. States get what is left over.

Good story Bro.

it comes from our supreme law of the land.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary.

To the security of a free State, not a condition on the right to weapons.

Only in extreme conditions; only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

No matter how many times you rephrase it, your still failing miserably.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process

How can they be available under State Consrirurions?

You don't even understand the Supremecy Clause.

Too many variables for your interpretation to be reasonable.

Well-reg militia are necessary for security of a free Stare. That is expressly their necessity. You cannot twist it.

Such militia are NOT necessary for the right to bear arms. Learn to read English.

 

[Pop23]

nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.

Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.

The federal militia preempts State militias. States get what is left over.

Good story Bro.

it comes from our supreme law of the land.

I keep forgetting that you’re posting from Cuba.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

nope; you are either, well regulated or unorganized. Which Persons of the People is clearly expressed in the first clause.

Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.

The federal militia preempts State militias. States get what is left over.

Good story Bro.

it comes from our supreme law of the land.

I keep forgetting that you’re posting from Cuba.

Clearly, English is not his first language, and he wants us disarmed to bring his commie shit here.

 

[Pop23]

Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.

The federal militia preempts State militias. States get what is left over.

Good story Bro.

it comes from our supreme law of the land.

I keep forgetting that you’re posting from Cuba.

Clearly, English is not his first language, and he wants us disarmed to bring his commie shit here.

He thinks beating this dead horse will revive it?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary.

To the security of a free State, not a condition on the right to weapons.

Only in extreme conditions; only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

No matter how many times you rephrase it, your still failing miserably.

the wing has nothing but fallacy induced fantasy to work with.

unorganized militia may be infringed, when required for the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process

How can they be available under State Consrirurions?

You don't even understand the Supremecy Clause.

Too many variables for your interpretation to be reasonable.

Well-reg militia are necessary for security of a free Stare. That is expressly their necessity. You cannot twist it.

Such militia are NOT necessary for the right to bear arms. Learn to read English.

two different concepts. only the right wing, never gets it.

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

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary.

To the security of a free State, not a condition on the right to weapons.

Only in extreme conditions; only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

No matter how many times you rephrase it, your still failing miserably.

the wing has nothing but fallacy induced fantasy to work with.

unorganized militia may be infringed, when required for the security of a free State.

Beating dead horse. ^^^^^^

 

[Pop23]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process

How can they be available under State Consrirurions?

You don't even understand the Supremecy Clause.

Too many variables for your interpretation to be reasonable.

Well-reg militia are necessary for security of a free Stare. That is expressly their necessity. You cannot twist it.

Such militia are NOT necessary for the right to bear arms. Learn to read English.

two different concepts. only the right wing, never gets it.

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

The State can’t limit my right to defend myself.

 

[danielpalos]

Either State constitutions protect the right or they can't because they are preempted.

The federal militia preempts State militias. States get what is left over.

Good story Bro.

it comes from our supreme law of the land.

I keep forgetting that you’re posting from Cuba.

Clearly, English is not his first language, and he wants us disarmed to bring his commie shit here.

Not my fault, I grew up around my grandparents. And, Spanish is close to Italian, which is where Latin comes from.

And, I learned English, better than You.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process

How can they be available under State Consrirurions?

You don't even understand the Supremecy Clause.

Too many variables for your interpretation to be reasonable.

Well-reg militia are necessary for security of a free Stare. That is expressly their necessity. You cannot twist it.

Such militia are NOT necessary for the right to bear arms. Learn to read English.

two different concepts. only the right wing, never gets it.

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

The State can’t limit my right to defend myself.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller definitely Infringes on your right to keep and bear Arms when not well regulated.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process

How can they be available under State Consrirurions?

You don't even understand the Supremecy Clause.

Too many variables for your interpretation to be reasonable.

Well-reg militia are necessary for security of a free Stare. That is expressly their necessity. You cannot twist it.

Such militia are NOT necessary for the right to bear arms. Learn to read English.

two different concepts. only the right wing, never gets it.

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

How can the be protected if state constitutions are preempted by federal law?

You don't speak English, clearly, and you don't understand the supremecy clause.

Under your twisted scheme, no natural rights would ever be protected from the federal government. Due process has nothing to do with ANY of it.

Do you think you are a Con Law professor?

 

[MrShangles]

It's $100 bucks !!! No poor person in MassaHoochets gonna afford that. I sense a discrimination suit on this. Must be rich white privilege to have a "permit"..

Here's the Application that's so innovative and exciting.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/12/13/Updated LTC_FID card app - REVISED 05.19.15.pdf

Far as I can tell, most ALL of the questions are on the EXISTING NICS questionnaire.. Except maybe that "Green Card" question. And here's the WORST PART..

Far as I can tell the ACTIVE DATE on a "permit" is TEN DAYS.. $100 for a 10 day window to buy "ONE" gun or as many as you want??? And do you have to take the SAME COURSE everytime you purchase ANOTHER GUN?

If you do --- it's a $100 TAX on every gun you buy. THERE is what MassaHoochets is doing right there...

I smell law suits. Fire up the Supremes. I wanna hear "Come See About Me" or "Run RUn Run".

Even if true - it's a small price to pay for owning deadly weapons!

What about the part in the 2nd that says , shall NOT be infringed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller definitely Infringes on your right to keep and bear Arms when not well regulated

Which says what?

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process

How can they be available under State Consrirurions?

You don't even understand the Supremecy Clause.

Our federal Constitution secures Due Process from State Constitutions. And, is why nobody on the left should take right wingers seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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.

Well since the Constitution doesn’t say or has ever been interpreted the way you just claimed, your point is mute. Nice try.