Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is the price we pay to defend ourselves against speeders and motor vehicle violators?

Give up your privilege to drive on state roads. Not a right. Next.

 

[Pop23]

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?

What is the price to pay in Maryland when the drug dealers, gang bangers and criminals don't follow the law?

The law in Maryland that requires you to have training and permits to own and possess firearms.

What is the price to pay to defend yourself from the criminals who do not get permits and training?

What is this price to pay Fauxcohontas?

What is the price we pay to defend ourselves against speeders and motor vehicle violators?

If the speeder is threatening your life? The State not allowing the defense of your life, should be the criminal prosecution of those that deny your right to defend yourself. If anything is a human rights issue, none can be greater than the right to defend oneself and those endangered by criminal activity.

 

[Papageorgio]

...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.

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

You are incorrect, the courts have ruled your interpretation is wrong and has ruled that way for many decades.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Do you know what the lgbt community is? I know English is confusing. I will try to help if I can.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Has nothing to do with the right to weapons.

 

[danielpalos]

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

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

 

[Papageorgio]

The left is jumping all over on this thread trying to twist the 2nd Amendment. It is absolutely amazing to watch them distort and lie to make their points.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution has always been express, not implied.

Then, quit implying. It does not EXPRESSLY say what you think it says.

Yes, it does. The People are the Militia. Both are plural, not individual.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Yet, you continue to imply.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

You are incorrect, the courts have ruled your interpretation is wrong and has ruled that way for many decades.

Courts have never ruled, well regulated militia may not infringe the unorganized militia.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

So the Constitution means nothing? We don’t have to follow the Constitution?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it does. The People are the Militia. Both are plural, not individual.

You fail at English. State does not mean people does not mean militia.

Learn English danny.

 

[danielpalos]

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Yet, you continue to imply.

projecting much. You have nothing but fallacy, I have an argument.

 

[danielpalos]

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

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

So the Constitution means nothing? We don’t have to follow the Constitution?

it means what it says; the people are the militia.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Nothing in the Constitution supports the murder of unborn children. The corrupt courts made this up out of nothing.

Nothing in the Constitution supports the the recognition of immoral homosexual mockeries of marriage as being comparable to genuine marriage. The corrupt courts made this up out of nothing.

The people's right to keep and bear arms, however, is explicitly and absolutely affirmed in the Constitution, along with an explicit prohibition against infringement of this right.

It's funny how you left wrong-wing filth are fond of making up and upholding fake “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere suggested or implied in the Constitution, while disparaging and denying genuine Constitutional rights that are explicitly affirmed in the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. The People are the Militia. Both are plural, not individual.

You fail at English. State does not mean people does not mean militia.

Learn English danny.

learn English yourself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Courts have never ruled, well regulated militia may not infringe the unorganized militia.

So, who can infringe on unorganized militia? That's a 1903 law that does not change the Constitution, no matter how hard you try to fuck up the English language.

Learn English. Let us deal with these issues for now. You are incapable.

 

[Pop23]

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

Do you know what the lgbt community is? I know English is confusing. I will try to help if I can.

Oh I think he has first hand experience of what the LBGTQ-LMNOP community is. As does jbender, I'm thinking they may be two of their founding fathers.

 

[danielpalos]

Courts have never ruled, well regulated militia may not infringe the unorganized militia.

So, who can infringe on unorganized militia? That's a 1903 law that does not change the Constitution, no matter how hard you try to fuck up the English language.

Learn English. Let us deal with these issues for now. You are incapable.

It is about resolving any conflict of law. Only the right wing has to make up stories.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

that is literally, what our Second Amendment declares.

You are incorrect, the courts have ruled your interpretation is wrong and has ruled that way for many decades.

Courts have never ruled, well regulated militia may not infringe the unorganized militia.

Here we go again, you keep citing Heller then twist what the ruling meant. Either learn to communicate your thoughts clearly and concisely or we will continue to have this issue on jumping all over the place. I honestly have no idea what you believe or what you are trying to say. You keep quoting DC vs. Heller and continue to go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the case.

Sorry but if you can’t communicate your thoughts, get a six year old to help you.