Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Lakhota]

Go Massachusetts!

 

[Papageorgio]

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

Said the Spanish speaking guy who leaves out words.

i leave out the fallacies. the right wing has nothing but stories.

the right of the people shall not be infringed.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

You use a double negative and you claim that someone else doesn’t know what they are talking about? Lol! You are a real funny dumb ass! My oh my the comedy you provide is absolutely incredible. You are a conservative pretending to be a liberal to make liberals look stupid, no one, and I mean no one is as stupid as you are pretending to be.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

You have provided no proof that MA’s laws make anyone safer. Lol! As your buddy daniel so often says, you have nothing but fallacy.

 

[Papageorgio]

Automobiles are heavily regulated - guns aren't.

Shannyn Moore: My Guns Are Less Regulated Than My Uterus

So it's easier to open carry an M16 in NYC than it is to drive a car on a public NYC road?

I remember those like the op'er claimed the AR-15 was fully automatic and when pointed out the requirements to own a fully automatic weapon, well let just say the op is now more educated!

I'm 71

Too bad. I was hoping you were 6 or 7. Then you'd have a chance of getting smarter as you age. At 71, that's about as smart as your going to get as your experiences wind down and dementia sets in. Did you get brain damage in the military?

Are you like Trump - no respect for veterans?

We can respect veterans, and still think you are an idiot.

 

[Claudette]

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 criminals with guns can kill your sorry ass and motor vehicle laws aren't anything like a criminal with a gun.

Get real shitting bull.

 

[Claudette]

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.

I agree. The only way to stop gun deaths is to shoot those using guns in the head. Once they are gone I doubt anyone will want to use a gun to commit a crime.

Easy peasy.

 

[Pop23]

"Tough" gun laws operate to disarm the law-abiding, making them more vulnerable to the criminal element who ignore those stupid laws and arm themselves with black market guns.

The ability for government to control guns is equal to its ability to control narcotics. When will you and those who think like you wise up to that simple fact? The only good thing about the Massachusetts law is the training requirement (for those who can't pass a proficiency test). That will be helpful.

Who is trying to "disarm the law-abiding"?

How about New Jersey via their gun laws?

What has New Jersey banned?

Guns. You can't buy them legally unless the government decides you can.

True - and that is how it should be for public safety.

Public safety is uneffected when the rule is reliant on the criminal

 

[Pop23]

Go Massachusetts!

Go to hell Massachusetts.....

Fixed it for ya

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; so, yes, possession is, nine-tenths of the law.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; so, yes, possession is, nine-tenths of the law.

the right of the people shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; so, yes, possession is, nine-tenths of the law.

the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Well regulated militia are People, too.

 

[LOki]

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.

Wrong. Again. Still.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong. Again. Still.

I have learned how to spar with the illogical phenomenon know as danielpalos. Your best approach is to come back with something like the following:

It clearly states that neither any State nor Congress can pass laws restricting the ownership, possession of, or access to belt-fed machine guns.

See, it clearly says:

"A well-functioning machine gun, being necessary for the freedom of the people, shall not be infringed by anyone."

That's the way I read it, and danpalos does nothing but Appeal to Gibberish by stating that we are "Appealing to Ignorance of the law" which demonstrates that he does not understand the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

The 2nd Amendment says that felons still get machine guns.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong. Again. Still.

I can't be wrong; i am resorting to the fewest fallacies.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I can't be wrong; i am resorting to the fewest fallacies

Behold, the fallacy of Argument from Fallacy.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false."




The 2nd Amendment says that felons get machine guns.

 

[danielpalos]

I can't be wrong; i am resorting to the fewest fallacies

Behold, the fallacy of Argument from Fallacy.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false."




The 2nd Amendment says that felons get machine guns.

You have nothing but fallacy. The unorganized militia is subject to the police power.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You have nothing but fallacy. The unorganized militia is subject to the police power.

But, it clearly states:

"A high-powered machine gun, being necessary for the security of a home, the right of a person to keep and bear machine guns shall not be infringed."

 

[Timmy]

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".

Even if true - it's a small price to pay for owning deadly weapons!

The most deadly weapon in America is the automobile... You have a Constitutional Right to own a firearm but you do not have a Constitutional Right to drive.

So let cut the nonsense and admit firearms are only dangerous to those like you that are ignorant...

Firearms are designed to kill . Cars are not .

Quit falling down the well, Vehicle ownership is not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right till someone fucks it up for themselves.

“Absolute right “ ? Making shit up again?

Registering guns and their sales doesn’t infrInge on your right to bear arms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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".

Even if true - it's a small price to pay for owning deadly weapons!

The most deadly weapon in America is the automobile... You have a Constitutional Right to own a firearm but you do not have a Constitutional Right to drive.

So let cut the nonsense and admit firearms are only dangerous to those like you that are ignorant...

Firearms are designed to kill . Cars are not .

Quit falling down the well, Vehicle ownership is not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right till someone fucks it up for themselves.

“Absolute right “ ? Making shit up again?

Registering guns and their sales doesn’t infrInge on your right to bear arms.

If I have a right there is no need to register.

Do you have to register your mouth, computers, pens and paper to exercise your first amendment rights of free speech?