Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[DarkFury]

It's $100 bucks !!! No poor person in MassaHoochets gonna afford that. I sense a discrimination suit on this. Must be rich white privilege to have a "permit"..

Here's the Application that's so innovative and exciting.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/12/13/Updated LTC_FID card app - REVISED 05.19.15.pdf

Far as I can tell, most ALL of the questions are on the EXISTING NICS questionnaire.. Except maybe that "Green Card" question. And here's the WORST PART..

Far as I can tell the ACTIVE DATE on a "permit" is TEN DAYS.. $100 for a 10 day window to buy "ONE" gun or as many as you want??? And do you have to take the SAME COURSE everytime you purchase ANOTHER GUN?

If you do --- it's a $100 TAX on every gun you buy. THERE is what MassaHoochets is doing right there...

I smell law suits. Fire up the Supremes. I wanna hear "Come See About Me" or "Run RUn Run".

Given the recent history of that state. Maybe they should have gone with pressure cookers first?

 

[skye]

I have this friend from Maine...not too close a friend...but omigod.....what a Communist she is!

it is so hard to get along with her

 

[skye]

why Maine is such a communist place? why?

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Only one subset of the whole People shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, not natural rights.

Is that something out of the constitution in the Judge Dredd universe?

What does DC v Heller paragraph (2), mean to you.

Does it matter what it means to me? If you don't like my answer, you'll start writing versions of the court case that don't exist outside of your imagination. Just like you do with the second amendment.

And no, I'm not digging up court cases for you. YOU quote it if you want to discuss it.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

That's funny. I searched "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)" for that exact text and didn't find it.

 

[bgrouse]

It's $100 bucks !!! No poor person in MassaHoochets gonna afford that. I sense a discrimination suit on this. Must be rich white privilege to have a "permit"..

Here's the Application that's so innovative and exciting.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/12/13/Updated LTC_FID card app - REVISED 05.19.15.pdf

Far as I can tell, most ALL of the questions are on the EXISTING NICS questionnaire.. Except maybe that "Green Card" question. And here's the WORST PART..

Far as I can tell the ACTIVE DATE on a "permit" is TEN DAYS.. $100 for a 10 day window to buy "ONE" gun or as many as you want??? And do you have to take the SAME COURSE everytime you purchase ANOTHER GUN?

If you do --- it's a $100 TAX on every gun you buy. THERE is what MassaHoochets is doing right there...

I smell law suits. Fire up the Supremes. I wanna hear "Come See About Me" or "Run RUn Run".

Given the recent history of that state. Maybe they should have gone with pressure cookers first?

Yes, didn't those guys kill more people with pressure cookers than with scary AR-15s? The left's efforts to ban such scary looking rifles are downright religious.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only one subset of the whole People shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, not natural rights.

English fail.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only one subset of the whole People shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, not natural rights.

Is that something out of the constitution in the Judge Dredd universe?

What does DC v Heller paragraph (2), mean to you.

Does it matter what it means to me? If you don't like my answer, you'll start writing versions of the court case that don't exist outside of your imagination. Just like you do with the second amendment.

And no, I'm not digging up court cases for you. YOU quote it if you want to discuss it.

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

 

[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.

That's funny. I searched "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)" for that exact text and didn't find it.

I know how to paraphrase, not just make up stories, right wingers.

 

[Pop23]

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

Only one subset of the whole People shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, not natural rights.

Is that something out of the constitution in the Judge Dredd universe?

What does DC v Heller paragraph (2), mean to you.

Does it matter what it means to me? If you don't like my answer, you'll start writing versions of the court case that don't exist outside of your imagination. Just like you do with the second amendment.

And no, I'm not digging up court cases for you. YOU quote it if you want to discuss it.

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

No, to be clearly stated, as you claim, it would read:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of our Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note, it does not read in that manner.

 

[danielpalos]

Only one subset of the whole People shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, not natural rights.

English fail.

yes, you did. there is no appeal to ignorance, right wingers.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only the republican doctrine.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only one subset of the whole People shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, not natural rights.

English fail.

yes, you did. there is no appeal to ignorance, right wingers.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only the republican doctrine.

A well-balanced diet, being necessary for the promotion of good health, the right of the people to grow and eat vegetables shall not be infringed.

Based on your failed understanding of proper English...

Only a subset of the well-balanced diet shall not be infringed when seeking the promotion of good health.

English fail.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 ?

Full autos are legal

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 .

An Ar fires one bullet at a time just like any other semiautomatic rifle they are no faster than a person's finger and that is not very fast in comparison to fully automatic weapons

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 .

They are very practical for hunting small game and home defense.

The most effective firearm for home or self defense is one you can fire accurately it doesn't matter if it's a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle

 

[danielpalos]

Only one subset of the whole People shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, not natural rights.

English fail.

yes, you did. there is no appeal to ignorance, right wingers.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only the republican doctrine.

A well-balanced diet, being necessary for the promotion of good health, the right of the people to grow and eat vegetables shall not be infringed.

Based on your failed understanding of proper English...

Only a subset of the well-balanced diet shall not be infringed when seeking the promotion of good health.

English fail.

The People are the Militia. There is no appeal to ignorance of that legal fact.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People are the Militia. There is no appeal to ignorance of that legal fact.

The people are the well-balanced diet. There is no appeal to shitty English of that legal fact.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia. There is no appeal to ignorance of that legal fact.

The people are the well-balanced diet. There is no appeal to shitty English of that legal fact.

Thanks for playing. non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. and, you only have a fallacy of composition.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thanks for playing. non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. and, you only have a fallacy of composition.

Improperly using words interchangeably is ENGLISH FAIL.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Well-Regulated =/= Organized

English Fail.

 

[danielpalos]

Thanks for playing. non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. and, you only have a fallacy of composition.

Improperly using words interchangeably is ENGLISH FAIL.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Well-Regulated =/= Organized

English Fail.

you are simply appealing to ignorance of the law; that is why you only have excuses.

Wellness of regulation Must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.