Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Too bad the only latin word used in the 2nd Amendment is militia. No wonder you don't understand the rest.

Learn English, the become a law professor, Sancho.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Which says what?

only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

 

[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.

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.

lol. it is standard practice in our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Too bad the only latin word used in the 2nd Amendment is militia. No wonder you don't understand the rest.

Learn English, the become a law professor, Sancho.

i learned about our Constitutional form of government, not our Second Amendment form of Government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"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."

... Said no legal scholar, EVER,!!!

 

[danielpalos]

"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."

... Said no legal scholar, EVER,!!!

lol. Our federal Constitution, says it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

i learned about our Constitutional form of government, not our Second Amendment form of Government.

You should have learned English first, Sancho.

 

[Pop23]

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

Which says what?

He does have difficulty explaining himself. I’m thinking he doesn’t get out much.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Since the Constitution was written without your added wording and no court has ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way you claim, what makes you remotely be.ieve you are correct in your interpretation?

 

[danielpalos]

i learned about our Constitutional form of government, not our Second Amendment form of Government.

You should have learned English first, Sancho.

lol. i learned it better than You. the Proof is, You have nothing but fallacy.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

And you would be fine with women undergoing the same process before getting an abortion? If we are going to limit SOME rights, we must limit ALL rights. Thankfully, we don't live in such a totalitarian state where women have to undergo such things...and legal gun owners should not have to as well.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

lol. Our federal Constitution, says it

How would you know, Sancho? You don't speak or read English.

 

[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.

Since the Constitution was written without your added wording and no court has ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way you claim, what makes you remotely be.ieve you are correct in your interpretation?

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller, says that very Thing.

 

[Pop23]

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

Which says what?

only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

Then it wouldn’t appear in the Bill of Rights.

You lose again

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Our federal Constitution, says it

How would you know, Sancho? You don't speak or read English.

I know it; Because, i get other fellows to resort to fallacy for their Cause, first.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Which says what?

only well regulated militia may not be infringed.

Then it wouldn’t appear in the Bill of Rights.

You lose again

lol. you don't know what you are talking about, right winger.

it says so in the first Clause of our Second Amendment.

 

[Pop23]

lol. Our federal Constitution, says it

How would you know, Sancho? You don't speak or read English.

I know it; Because, i get other fellows to resort to fallacy for their Cause, first.

Not an argument.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

lol. i learned it better than You. the Proof is, You have nothing but fallacy.

You don't even know what "fallacy" means. Learn English before you declare yourself a U.S. Con Law professor, okay Sancho.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. i learned it better than You. the Proof is, You have nothing but fallacy.

You don't even know what "fallacy" means. Learn English before you declare yourself a U.S. Con Law professor, okay Sancho.

simply claiming that is a fallacy and a diversion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

lol. you don't know what you are talking about, right winger.

it says so in the first Clause of our Second Amendment.

NOBODY know what you are talking about, Puta. Not even you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

simply claiming that is a fallacy and a diversion.

Your whole line of argument is a diversion. Puta.