Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Papageorgio]

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.

You have absolutely nothing. You can’t seem to communicate with anyone.

i guess i don't need to; i don't have to resort to fallacy, either.

Because you can’t convey thought all you are is fallacy.

 

[Papageorgio]

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be more critical of less fortunate illegals.

And yet we all are bearing arms if we choose some 200 plus years after the fact. The courts have upheld and continue to uphold the right to bear arms. Sorry that you can’t understand simple laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

 

[Papageorgio]

10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be more critical of less fortunate illega

Does not and cannot alter the Constitution. You would know this, if you spoke English.

is it really really that important, right wingers?

enroll the militia, don't whine about less fortunate illegals, practicing their natural rights.

Change the 2nd Amendment, it is on you to change it, if it is that important to you, but I doubt it is because you won’t do a damn thing.

 

[Timmy]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

 

[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

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

All our rights have safety limits .

Background checks, vetting, registering do not stop criminals either. Not sure what your point is.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

AR15s are not full autos.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

The push is for semi-automatics to be illegal, that would effectively ban most of all hand guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

The push is for semi-automatics to be illegal, that would effectively ban most of all hand guns.

And, because they won't leave well enough alone, we should repeal all gun laws and walk down the street toting belt-fed machine guns for fun.

 

[Timmy]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

AR15s are not full autos.

Right . Because they are pretty much illegal . But AR’s are designed to kill/maime lots of people really fast .

 

[danielpalos]

is it really really that important, right wingers?

enroll the militia, don't whine about less fortunate illegals, practicing their natural rights.

And, there you have it, folks.

Dan palos is a pissed off illegal Mexican trying to deny you your rights to weapons so he and his fellow contrymen can invade and take over.

We need war with Mexico now more than ever. We need to destroy them.

lol. 10USC246 is federal law, right wingers. Don't be more critical of less fortunate illegals.

 

[Timmy]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

The push is for semi-automatics to be illegal, that would effectively ban most of all hand guns.

That is not the push . The push is for these people hunting AR types . Which is what they are . They ain’t hunting rifles , they are not practical for home or personal defense .

 

[Pop23]

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

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

All our rights have safety limits .

We know that a nation must have military might to protect itself, and we know how our past has shown how a government can use its military to enslave its own people, the right of the people to maintain arms to resist such an occurrence, is absolute.

Read your history books.

 

[Pop23]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

The push is for semi-automatics to be illegal, that would effectively ban most of all hand guns.

That is not the push . The push is for these people hunting AR types . Which is what they are . They ain’t hunting rifles , they are not practical for home or personal defense .

And obviously not for murder either as they are used in less than 2% of those.

I dont care how effective you THINK they are in home defense, it is not your opinion that matters.

And I will ask again. If your daughter fought off a rapist, does it matter to you what weapon she used to accomplish this?

Please answer, but I doubt you will.

 

[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

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

The People are the Militia. Only the right wing, appeals to ignorance.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Timmy]

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

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

All our rights have safety limits .

We know that a nation must have military might to protect itself, and we know how our past has shown how a government can use its military to enslave its own people, the right of the people to maintain arms to resist such an occurrence, is absolute.

Read your history books.

So you need an AR to shoot police officers ? That’s basically what you are saying .

Let’s say your crazy scenario played out . Trump orders Marshall law and refuses to step down as president. You will take on law enforcement and the military with your AR ?

 

[Timmy]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

The push is for semi-automatics to be illegal, that would effectively ban most of all hand guns.

That is not the push . The push is for these people hunting AR types . Which is what they are . They ain’t hunting rifles , they are not practical for home or personal defense .

And obviously not for murder either as they are used in less than 2% of those.

I dont care how effective you THINK they are in home defense, it is not your opinion that matters.

And I will ask again. If your daughter fought off a rapist, does it matter to you what weapon she used to accomplish this?

Please answer, but I doubt you will.

I’d give her a handgun. Wouldn’t you ? Who gives their kid an AR for self protection !?

 

[bgrouse]

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

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

The People are the Militia. Only the right wing, appeals to ignorance.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

So your argument is neither the people's nor the militia's right to bear arms shall be infringed? OK.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

We don't believe you.

You know why?

Banning a particular type of rifle effectively bans all guns.

We think you know this. That is why we don't believe you.

Autos are effectively banned . Shit goes back to the Tommy gun days .

So much for your argument.

Oh wait a min? Do you think full autos should be legal ?

The push is for semi-automatics to be illegal, that would effectively ban most of all hand guns.

That is not the push . The push is for these people hunting AR types . Which is what they are . They ain’t hunting rifles , they are not practical for home or personal defense .

Who is the push for?
Are you speaking to those that are bitterly clinging to their religion and guns? Are you speaking to the deplorables? Are you asking those that were told they could keep their insurance and keep their doctors? Did Pocahontas make the claim?

You have a very poor track record when it comes to honesty.

 

[bgrouse]

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

No, dumbass, that's not what it says.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

It references "the right of the people," not the right of the well regulated militia. You're seeing something that isn't there you stupid piece of shit!

Then why is milita even mentioned ?

I guess they wanted to say a well-regulated one was necessary for the security of a free state. No reason to go around pretending parts of the 2nd amendment are missing.

Look. No one is out to BAN ALL GUNS ! You couldn’t anyway . But stuff like background checks, vetting, registering , do not stop law abiding citizens.

All our rights have safety limits .

They already have laws against crimes like murder, with a gun or otherwise.