Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Papageorgio]

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.

Uh...the Supreme Court ruled the DC law was unconstitutional.

 

[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

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

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

You need a civics class about the reason we have a bill of rights and it’s purpose.

If you write a book about astro physics and include a chapter about the Ford Mustang your book will have as much credibility as your argument does.

Which is ZERO.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

only well regulated militia may not be infringed

You failed at English.

It does not say that, coño.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

 

[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.

4th lowest murder rate too.

What a surprise

You should check out the demographics of Massachusetts and that might give some insight into why the murder rate is so low.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Could you please say that in English?

 

[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?

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

The Supreme Court shot down the law as unconstitutional

 

[Papageorgio]

simply claiming that is a fallacy and a diversion.

Your whole line of argument is a diversion. Puta.

He has a line of argument?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

nothing but fallacy, right winger? even promiscuous women are more conservative.

 

[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.

The Supreme Court shot down the law as unconstitutional

This is what should have been discussed; and a federal doctrine promulgated:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

[hunarcy]

only well regulated militia may not be infringed

You failed at English.

It does not say that, coño.

daniel is just a waste-of-time troll who repeats the same failed arguments on every thread he jumps in, eventhough those arguments fail every time he trots them out...he's not worth reading or responding to.

 

[danielpalos]

only well regulated militia may not be infringed

You failed at English.

It does not say that, coño.

daniel is just a waste-of-time troll who repeats the same failed arguments on every thread he jumps in, eventhough those arguments fail every time he trots them out...he's not worth reading or responding to.

only well regulated militia may not be infringed

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And of course there’s yet another aspect of rightwing hypocrisy in play.

Conservatives are incessantly whining about how the ‘will of the people’ of a state should be respected, that state laws shouldn’t be struck down by ‘activist judges’ and ‘tyrants in black robes’ who ‘legislate from the bench.’

If the ‘will of the people’ should be respected when a state seeks to ban abortion or ban same-sex marriage, it should likewise be respected when a state seeks to ban assault weapons.

Such is the inconsistent conservative.

 

[Pop23]

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.

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

Any state that denies its citizens the right to defend themselves against murder and rape is a State that does not deserve to exist IMHO.

 

[Pop23]

And of course there’s yet another aspect of rightwing hypocrisy in play.

Conservatives are incessantly whining about how the ‘will of the people’ of a state should be respected, that state laws shouldn’t be struck down by ‘activist judges’ and ‘tyrants in black robes’ who ‘legislate from the bench.’

If the ‘will of the people’ should be respected when a state seeks to ban abortion or ban same-sex marriage, it should likewise be respected when a state seeks to ban assault weapons.

Such is the inconsistent conservative.

We saw how well that worked, right?

I’ve always respected you, after that post, not so much.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The Supreme Court shot down the law as unconstitutional

This is what should have been discussed; and a federal doctrine promulgated:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was and it went against the District of Columbia, it upheld that individual citizens had a right to bear arms. The court found that six private citizens had a right to own a fire arm thus your idea that DC vs Heller somehow restricts fire arms in the hands of a private citizen is absolutely false.

 

[Papageorgio]

And of course there’s yet another aspect of rightwing hypocrisy in play.

Conservatives are incessantly whining about how the ‘will of the people’ of a state should be respected, that state laws shouldn’t be struck down by ‘activist judges’ and ‘tyrants in black robes’ who ‘legislate from the bench.’

If the ‘will of the people’ should be respected when a state seeks to ban abortion or ban same-sex marriage, it should likewise be respected when a state seeks to ban assault weapons.

Such is the inconsistent conservative.

The left didn’t seem to care about states rights when Arizona wanted to carry out federal immigration laws. So it seems that both the left and right are hypocritical. I believe Massachusetts has a right to put this into law and I have a right not to agree with it. Which isn’t hypocritical, because I don’t deny the state the ability to make a law. Now if it is challenged and the law is proved unconstitutional then the law will be struck down.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The standard practice in this country is every citizen has a right to bear arms.

defense of self and property, are considered natural rights and are recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Supreme Court shot down the law as unconstitutional

This is what should have been discussed; and a federal doctrine promulgated:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It was and it went against the District of Columbia, it upheld that individual citizens had a right to bear arms. The court found that six private citizens had a right to own a fire arm thus your idea that DC vs Heller somehow restricts fire arms in the hands of a private citizen is absolutely false.

What is the police power and what should it apply to, regarding Arms?

 

[danielpalos]

And of course there’s yet another aspect of rightwing hypocrisy in play.

Conservatives are incessantly whining about how the ‘will of the people’ of a state should be respected, that state laws shouldn’t be struck down by ‘activist judges’ and ‘tyrants in black robes’ who ‘legislate from the bench.’

If the ‘will of the people’ should be respected when a state seeks to ban abortion or ban same-sex marriage, it should likewise be respected when a state seeks to ban assault weapons.

Such is the inconsistent conservative.

The left didn’t seem to care about states rights when Arizona wanted to carry out federal immigration laws. So it seems that both the left and right are hypocritical. I believe Massachusetts has a right to put this into law and I have a right not to agree with it. Which isn’t hypocritical, because I don’t deny the state the ability to make a law. Now if it is challenged and the law is proved unconstitutional then the law will be struck down.

States have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808. Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation, since then.