Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Pop23]

like always claim; the right wing has nothing but fallacy. they should have better solutions at lower cost.

As long as you concede ....shall not be infringed.

We have a Second Amendment; we should have no security problems.

That is my story; I can stick to it.

You mean:

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it?

Happy to help

 

[Pop23]

exactly; well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You quoted the Amendment incorrectly.

it is not, incorrect.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

Your fucked up use of a comma couple with your confusing double negative is entirely relevant when it makes your comments unclear.

You said:

"it is not, incorrect."

Do you mean it is correct? Do you mean, it is not--that is incorrect? What are you saying?

 

[ThisIsMe]

What, that seat belts and airbags save lives?

That the slippery slope concern is valid.

You were so excited to tout how awesome those new regulations are that you forgot my real point and proved my case---when it comes to government action restrickting liberty in the name of safety, the slippery slope is CERTAIN because the government has a 100% track record of sliding down the slippery slope....every fucking time.

Only a complete fucking moron would say "every fucking time". We all live better thanks to government.

Government is Good - An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution
Government is Good - An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution - 24k - similar pages
Details government s crucial role in improving Americans lives and promoting the public good. Also critiques the right-wing attack on government.

Government is Good - A Day in Your Life
Government is Good - A Day in Your Life - 16k - similar pages
Let's examine a typical day in the life of an average middle-class American and try to identify some of the ways that government improves that person's life during ...

What has government done to make lives better, that hasn't adversely affected someone else? Government, on average has made life worse for most of Americans. Because if their tax and spend policies, and mismanagement of the treasury, people are having to work twice as hard as they did 30 years ago, to make a life for themselves.

The government, which allowed the formation of a central bank, was the single worst decision they could have perpetuated on the people.

 

[danielpalos]

non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

Your fucked up use of a comma couple with your confusing double negative is entirely relevant when it makes your comments unclear.

You said:

"it is not, incorrect."

Do you mean it is correct? Do you mean, it is not--that is incorrect? What are you saying?

You don't know what you are talking about. That is what I am saying. You have nothing but fallacy, to prove it.

The People are the Militia. why appeal to ignorance of that fact?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The People are the Militia. why appeal to ignorance of that fact?

So, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, do they not?

 

[Lakhota]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

To prosecute and put criminals away after they break the law?

 

[ThisIsMe]

We have a Second Amendment; we should have no security problems.

Because the right of the people shall not be infringed?

exactly; well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia is subject to the Police power.

"...is subject to police power". That statement right there should scare the pants off you.

When they were debating the amendments to the constitution, it is clear they wanted the average citizen to keep and bear arms, with the idea that a militia would be formed under the power of the people, not the government. As such, the militia is whoever wants to be included in it. This means anyone and everyone willing to defend their freedoms.

 

[Pop23]

non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

Your fucked up use of a comma couple with your confusing double negative is entirely relevant when it makes your comments unclear.

You said:

"it is not, incorrect."

Do you mean it is correct? Do you mean, it is not--that is incorrect? What are you saying?

Put Dan and Rosy on ignore. Life will be quieter now

 

[ThisIsMe]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

Well, first of all, there are no rights to driving a motor vehicle outlined in the constitution, so, having speed limits is a legitimate set of laws.

Putting laws on motor vehicles doesn't have any nearing on freedoms and liberties of the people, however, speeding poses an imminent danger to the driver as well as other motorists on the road. Aside from the driver possibly making a mistake and causing harm to others, there are also outside factors to consider. Road conditions, weather, congestion, all of those things pose a problem where excess speed is concerned.

As far as seatbelt laws are concerned, I disagree with them. If you want to drive around without a safety belt, that should be your business. It's like how most states don't have helmet laws, but they have seatbelt laws. That doesn't make any sense. The only time a seat belt law should be enforced is if there is a child in the car, who doesn't have the ability to protect themselves, or affect the outcome should an accident happen.

Most laws are redundant, murder, robbery, those are things that are common sense and apply to all people. Other laws are implemented to guide people into following the rules, don't cheat on your taxes, don't trespass on private property.

None of these apply to guns, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. This idea that banning guns will make the country a safer place is just a myth. Murderers will find a way to murder, and often, with just as much efficiency as a firearm.

 

[Pop23]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

Laws don’t stop crime. Adding additional layers just to think you did something is not progress.

 

[Lakhota]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

Well, first of all, there are no rights to driving a motor vehicle outlined in the constitution, so, having speed limits is a legitimate set of laws.

Putting laws on motor vehicles doesn't have any nearing on freedoms and liberties of the people, however, speeding poses an imminent danger to the driver as well as other motorists on the road. Aside from the driver possibly making a mistake and causing harm to others, there are also outside factors to consider. Road conditions, weather, congestion, all of those things pose a problem where excess speed is concerned.

As far as seatbelt laws are concerned, I disagree with them. If you want to drive around without a safety belt, that should be your business. It's like how most states don't have helmet laws, but they have seatbelt laws. That doesn't make any sense. The only time a seat belt law should be enforced is if there is a child in the car, who doesn't have the ability to protect themselves, or affect the outcome should an accident happen.

Most laws are redundant, murder, robbery, those are things that are common sense and apply to all people. Other laws are implemented to guide people into following the rules, don't cheat on your taxes, don't trespass on private property.

None of these apply to guns, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. This idea that banning guns will make the country a safer place is just a myth. Murderers will find a way to murder, and often, with just as much efficiency as a firearm.

Who's talking about "banning" guns? As a lifelong gun enthusiast, hunter, and law-abiding U.S. citizen - I fully support closing all loopholes. Here's what I want: Ban assault weapons (like in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). Ban high-capacity magazines. Universal background checks. Address mental health, domestic abuse and reporting issues. Accurate and timely information being fed into an enhanced National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). All responsible gun owners should want this. States have a right to regulate guns.

 

[bgrouse]

Where does it say that? Go ahead and quote it.

Our Second Amendment is Express, not Implied. Nowhere is the unorganized militia declared necessary.

...which does absolutely nothing to make the right of the people to bear arms go away.

Only that which is Necessary, may not be Infringed.

You should write and pass an amendment like that. Number it 2.5 or something. Otherwise, it has absolutely no bearing on anything, including the law.

you merely don't understand the language or the context.

The language is English and you're the only moron here who doesn't understand it.

 

[bgrouse]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

Well, first of all, there are no rights to driving a motor vehicle outlined in the constitution, so, having speed limits is a legitimate set of laws.

Putting laws on motor vehicles doesn't have any nearing on freedoms and liberties of the people, however, speeding poses an imminent danger to the driver as well as other motorists on the road. Aside from the driver possibly making a mistake and causing harm to others, there are also outside factors to consider. Road conditions, weather, congestion, all of those things pose a problem where excess speed is concerned.

As far as seatbelt laws are concerned, I disagree with them. If you want to drive around without a safety belt, that should be your business. It's like how most states don't have helmet laws, but they have seatbelt laws. That doesn't make any sense. The only time a seat belt law should be enforced is if there is a child in the car, who doesn't have the ability to protect themselves, or affect the outcome should an accident happen.

Most laws are redundant, murder, robbery, those are things that are common sense and apply to all people. Other laws are implemented to guide people into following the rules, don't cheat on your taxes, don't trespass on private property.

None of these apply to guns, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. This idea that banning guns will make the country a safer place is just a myth. Murderers will find a way to murder, and often, with just as much efficiency as a firearm.

Who's talking about "banning" guns? As a lifelong gun enthusiast, hunter, and law-abiding U.S. citizen - I fully support closing all loopholes. Here's what I want: Ban assault weapons. Ban high-capacity magazines.

Would you support banning assault cars that go over 65 mph? How about cars with automatic transmissions and electrical starters?

 

[Lakhota]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

Well, first of all, there are no rights to driving a motor vehicle outlined in the constitution, so, having speed limits is a legitimate set of laws.

Putting laws on motor vehicles doesn't have any nearing on freedoms and liberties of the people, however, speeding poses an imminent danger to the driver as well as other motorists on the road. Aside from the driver possibly making a mistake and causing harm to others, there are also outside factors to consider. Road conditions, weather, congestion, all of those things pose a problem where excess speed is concerned.

As far as seatbelt laws are concerned, I disagree with them. If you want to drive around without a safety belt, that should be your business. It's like how most states don't have helmet laws, but they have seatbelt laws. That doesn't make any sense. The only time a seat belt law should be enforced is if there is a child in the car, who doesn't have the ability to protect themselves, or affect the outcome should an accident happen.

Most laws are redundant, murder, robbery, those are things that are common sense and apply to all people. Other laws are implemented to guide people into following the rules, don't cheat on your taxes, don't trespass on private property.

None of these apply to guns, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. This idea that banning guns will make the country a safer place is just a myth. Murderers will find a way to murder, and often, with just as much efficiency as a firearm.

Who's talking about "banning" guns? As a lifelong gun enthusiast, hunter, and law-abiding U.S. citizen - I fully support closing all loopholes. Here's what I want: Ban assault weapons. Ban high-capacity magazines.

Would you support banning assault cars that go over 65 mph? How about cars with automatic transmissions and electrical starters?

Cars aren't made to kill. They are classified as transportation - not weapons. BTW, speed limits regulate how fast we can go. Police monitor violators.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Cars aren't made to kill. They are classified as transportation - not weapons. BTW, speed limits regulate how fast we can go. Police monitor violators.

Cars are based on chariots, which were made to kill.

Design is irrelevant.

The intent of the user is.

You can throw out all the analogies you want. You cannot overlook the intent of the user. You also cannot stop bad behavior. You cannot control free will. Stop trying to do it.

 

[bgrouse]

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

Well, first of all, there are no rights to driving a motor vehicle outlined in the constitution, so, having speed limits is a legitimate set of laws.

Putting laws on motor vehicles doesn't have any nearing on freedoms and liberties of the people, however, speeding poses an imminent danger to the driver as well as other motorists on the road. Aside from the driver possibly making a mistake and causing harm to others, there are also outside factors to consider. Road conditions, weather, congestion, all of those things pose a problem where excess speed is concerned.

As far as seatbelt laws are concerned, I disagree with them. If you want to drive around without a safety belt, that should be your business. It's like how most states don't have helmet laws, but they have seatbelt laws. That doesn't make any sense. The only time a seat belt law should be enforced is if there is a child in the car, who doesn't have the ability to protect themselves, or affect the outcome should an accident happen.

Most laws are redundant, murder, robbery, those are things that are common sense and apply to all people. Other laws are implemented to guide people into following the rules, don't cheat on your taxes, don't trespass on private property.

None of these apply to guns, because guns don't kill people, people kill people. This idea that banning guns will make the country a safer place is just a myth. Murderers will find a way to murder, and often, with just as much efficiency as a firearm.

Who's talking about "banning" guns? As a lifelong gun enthusiast, hunter, and law-abiding U.S. citizen - I fully support closing all loopholes. Here's what I want: Ban assault weapons. Ban high-capacity magazines.

Would you support banning assault cars that go over 65 mph? How about cars with automatic transmissions and electrical starters?

Cars aren't made to kill.

Neither are all guns. Guns are designed for propelling a projectile. How you use it is up to you. But the bottom line you seem to be avoiding is that car crashes result in more deaths than gunfire. So you just have two object, either one of which can be used for homicide.

They are classified as transportation - not weapons. BTW, speed limits regulate how fast we can go. Police monitor violators.

So with that logic you'd be fine restricting yourself only to laws against the discharge of high capacity magazines at innocent people? Just like you're only against the illegal application of high speeds on certain roads and don't want to outright ban cars that can go fast?

 

[Lakhota]

Cars aren't made to kill. They are classified as transportation - not weapons. BTW, speed limits regulate how fast we can go. Police monitor violators.

Cars are based on chariots, which were made to kill.

Design is irrelevant.

The intent of the user is.

You can throw out all the analogies you want. You cannot overlook the intent of the user. You also cannot stop bad behavior. You cannot control free will. Stop trying to do it.

So, should we just abolish all laws? Do any laws save lives?