Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Pop23]

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?

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

Yet (it's sad that I have to keep pointing this out), but an outright ban is the only way to accomplish the stated goal and even that is highly speculative and incredibly suspect, so, unless you are a complete idiot, the stated goal is fake and the actual goal must be dubious, or the left would not be so incredibly afraid to actually make it known.

The argument is that, to reduce gun related homicide you must remove the gun. The argument is disingenuous as you may reduce gun related murder, but the theory is reliant on the argument that "a gun is a prerequisite to committing murder". Secondly, it relies of Murderers complying with the law, which we know is a false hope.

As we see in England, the theory fails. Guns were banned, but the murder rate INCREASED. Proof that a gun is not a prerequisite to Murder, indeed, it simply created a void easily filled by other, just as lethal tools.

Would this even matter to those who commit murder? We currently outlaw murder, and Murder can, and often does carry a punishment of up to Life in Prison to Death. You cannot punish anyone more than what is ultimate. You can't kill a murderer twice, and doubling a life sentence is equally foolish.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do. Face it, you lose again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Judicial activism? Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

And, it expressly says the right of the people...shall not be infringes.

You keep ignoring that part.

Learn English.

tell that to the lgbt community.

be, more than all political Talk.

What do you want me to tell the lbgt communithy? I support their rights. I will do whay I can to protect them.

I like to protect rights. Unlike you, Sancho.

The right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union?

InEnglish, it does not say keep and bear arms for the state or union. It silply says keep and bear arms. You are going beyond the express text.

That is because you suck at English. Learn English, then try to argue constitutional law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary

...to the security of a free state. That has nothing to do with the right to keep arms.

Learn English, danny. You suck at it.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

Yet (it's sad that I have to keep pointing this out), but an outright ban is the only way to accomplish the stated goal and even that is highly speculative and incredibly suspect, so, unless you are a complete idiot, the stated goal is fake and the actual goal must be dubious, or the left would not be so incredibly afraid to actually make it known.

The argument is that, to reduce gun related homicide you must remove the gun. The argument is disingenuous as you may reduce gun related murder, but the theory is reliant on the argument that "a gun is a prerequisite to committing murder". Secondly, it relies of Murderers complying with the law, which we know is a false hope.

As we see in England, the theory fails. Guns were banned, but the murder rate INCREASED. Proof that a gun is not a prerequisite to Murder, indeed, it simply created a void easily filled by other, just as lethal tools.

Would this even matter to those who commit murder? We currently outlaw murder, and Murder can, and often does carry a punishment of up to Life in Prison to Death. You cannot punish anyone more than what is ultimate. You can't kill a murderer twice, and doubling a life sentence is equally foolish.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do. Face it, you lose again.

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently.

 

[Pop23]

No, they are not. The People are the Militia. That is the understanding in our Second Amendment.

The militia are the people.


A well-re militia is necessary to secure a free state. Nothing more.

If you hablar English, you would know.

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary.

And if that were the intent, it would not be placed in the "Bill of Rights".

Stating the same stupid argument just makes it even more stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary

...to the security of a free state. That has nothing to do with the right to keep arms.

Learn English, danny. You suck at it.

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States.

 

[Pop23]

Heller was the only one that was part of law enforcement, the rest were private citizens with no police connection.

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

Yet (it's sad that I have to keep pointing this out), but an outright ban is the only way to accomplish the stated goal and even that is highly speculative and incredibly suspect, so, unless you are a complete idiot, the stated goal is fake and the actual goal must be dubious, or the left would not be so incredibly afraid to actually make it known.

The argument is that, to reduce gun related homicide you must remove the gun. The argument is disingenuous as you may reduce gun related murder, but the theory is reliant on the argument that "a gun is a prerequisite to committing murder". Secondly, it relies of Murderers complying with the law, which we know is a false hope.

As we see in England, the theory fails. Guns were banned, but the murder rate INCREASED. Proof that a gun is not a prerequisite to Murder, indeed, it simply created a void easily filled by other, just as lethal tools.

Would this even matter to those who commit murder? We currently outlaw murder, and Murder can, and often does carry a punishment of up to Life in Prison to Death. You cannot punish anyone more than what is ultimate. You can't kill a murderer twice, and doubling a life sentence is equally foolish.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do. Face it, you lose again.

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently.

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

 

[danielpalos]

No, they are not. The People are the Militia. That is the understanding in our Second Amendment.

The militia are the people.


A well-re militia is necessary to secure a free state. Nothing more.

If you hablar English, you would know.

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary.

And if that were the intent, it would not be placed in the "Bill of Rights".

Stating the same stupid argument just makes it even more stupid.

yes, it would. it is a right; the lgbt community has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently

In English, please?

 

[danielpalos]

Can you cite any instances where a Person was engaged in self-defense; and arrested for having Arms?

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

Yet (it's sad that I have to keep pointing this out), but an outright ban is the only way to accomplish the stated goal and even that is highly speculative and incredibly suspect, so, unless you are a complete idiot, the stated goal is fake and the actual goal must be dubious, or the left would not be so incredibly afraid to actually make it known.

The argument is that, to reduce gun related homicide you must remove the gun. The argument is disingenuous as you may reduce gun related murder, but the theory is reliant on the argument that "a gun is a prerequisite to committing murder". Secondly, it relies of Murderers complying with the law, which we know is a false hope.

As we see in England, the theory fails. Guns were banned, but the murder rate INCREASED. Proof that a gun is not a prerequisite to Murder, indeed, it simply created a void easily filled by other, just as lethal tools.

Would this even matter to those who commit murder? We currently outlaw murder, and Murder can, and often does carry a punishment of up to Life in Prison to Death. You cannot punish anyone more than what is ultimate. You can't kill a murderer twice, and doubling a life sentence is equally foolish.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do. Face it, you lose again.

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently.

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

No irony at all.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Pop23]

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary

...to the security of a free state. That has nothing to do with the right to keep arms.

Learn English, danny. You suck at it.

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States.

You make little sense. Maybe your gerbil understands you, but humans don't

 

[danielpalos]

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently

In English, please?

better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!

 

[Pop23]

Which has nothing to do with the DC vs. Heller case. Again, the court upheld Heller’s right to bear arms and also other plaintiffs who used the fire arms for target shooting..

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

Yet (it's sad that I have to keep pointing this out), but an outright ban is the only way to accomplish the stated goal and even that is highly speculative and incredibly suspect, so, unless you are a complete idiot, the stated goal is fake and the actual goal must be dubious, or the left would not be so incredibly afraid to actually make it known.

The argument is that, to reduce gun related homicide you must remove the gun. The argument is disingenuous as you may reduce gun related murder, but the theory is reliant on the argument that "a gun is a prerequisite to committing murder". Secondly, it relies of Murderers complying with the law, which we know is a false hope.

As we see in England, the theory fails. Guns were banned, but the murder rate INCREASED. Proof that a gun is not a prerequisite to Murder, indeed, it simply created a void easily filled by other, just as lethal tools.

Would this even matter to those who commit murder? We currently outlaw murder, and Murder can, and often does carry a punishment of up to Life in Prison to Death. You cannot punish anyone more than what is ultimate. You can't kill a murderer twice, and doubling a life sentence is equally foolish.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do. Face it, you lose again.

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently.

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

No irony at all.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You've not read all the amendments of the "Bill of Rights" have you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States

Could you state that in English please? What is a militia informing me of?

 

[danielpalos]

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary

...to the security of a free state. That has nothing to do with the right to keep arms.

Learn English, danny. You suck at it.

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States.

You make little sense. Maybe your gerbil understands you, but humans don't

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is involved.

 

[Pop23]

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently

In English, please?

better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!

When you want to make an argument, proceed. You have a tough time doing so, so no wonder you can't.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!

Is that English? What are you saying?

No comrende!

 

[danielpalos]

an outright ban is controversial; the manner of wearing Arms, is not.

Yet (it's sad that I have to keep pointing this out), but an outright ban is the only way to accomplish the stated goal and even that is highly speculative and incredibly suspect, so, unless you are a complete idiot, the stated goal is fake and the actual goal must be dubious, or the left would not be so incredibly afraid to actually make it known.

The argument is that, to reduce gun related homicide you must remove the gun. The argument is disingenuous as you may reduce gun related murder, but the theory is reliant on the argument that "a gun is a prerequisite to committing murder". Secondly, it relies of Murderers complying with the law, which we know is a false hope.

As we see in England, the theory fails. Guns were banned, but the murder rate INCREASED. Proof that a gun is not a prerequisite to Murder, indeed, it simply created a void easily filled by other, just as lethal tools.

Would this even matter to those who commit murder? We currently outlaw murder, and Murder can, and often does carry a punishment of up to Life in Prison to Death. You cannot punish anyone more than what is ultimate. You can't kill a murderer twice, and doubling a life sentence is equally foolish.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do. Face it, you lose again.

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently.

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

No irony at all.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You've not read all the amendments of the "Bill of Rights" have you?

Our Second Amendment, secures that States' sovereign right.

 

[Pop23]

the whole people are the militia. well regulated militia of the whole people, are expressly declared necessary

...to the security of a free state. That has nothing to do with the right to keep arms.

Learn English, danny. You suck at it.

Yes, it does; every time well regulated militia inform You, you are going to be Infringed, if you insist on being a security risk to our free States.

You make little sense. Maybe your gerbil understands you, but humans don't

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is involved.

Because you express an opinion does not make it a valid opinion.

 

[Pop23]

Yet (it's sad that I have to keep pointing this out), but an outright ban is the only way to accomplish the stated goal and even that is highly speculative and incredibly suspect, so, unless you are a complete idiot, the stated goal is fake and the actual goal must be dubious, or the left would not be so incredibly afraid to actually make it known.

The argument is that, to reduce gun related homicide you must remove the gun. The argument is disingenuous as you may reduce gun related murder, but the theory is reliant on the argument that "a gun is a prerequisite to committing murder". Secondly, it relies of Murderers complying with the law, which we know is a false hope.

As we see in England, the theory fails. Guns were banned, but the murder rate INCREASED. Proof that a gun is not a prerequisite to Murder, indeed, it simply created a void easily filled by other, just as lethal tools.

Would this even matter to those who commit murder? We currently outlaw murder, and Murder can, and often does carry a punishment of up to Life in Prison to Death. You cannot punish anyone more than what is ultimate. You can't kill a murderer twice, and doubling a life sentence is equally foolish.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do. Face it, you lose again.

We should organize more unorganized slackers, until crime drops sufficiently.

Would be far more effective than the Governments efforts. You don't see the irony in this?

No irony at all.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You've not read all the amendments of the "Bill of Rights" have you?

Our Second Amendment, secures that States' sovereign right.

Then it would appear outside the Bill of Rights.