Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[pknopp]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

 

[danielpalos]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 

[pknopp]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

All well and fine to believe and argue but if it you want it to be how it is, amend the Constitution.

 

[Anathema]

I've read nothing of the sort. All the same, only two needed one

I have the benefit of having the local news stations here in Boston in my cable package.

Inly two may have needed them, but none had them. I looked it up this morning and apparently MA law also allows LEOs to request IDs from all individuals in a vehicle being stopped or investigated.,

 

[danielpalos]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

All well and fine to believe and argue but if it you want it to be how it is, amend the Constitution.

That is actual Massachusetts Constitutional law. Article XVII.

 

[Crepitus]

You should grow up and start engaging with reality

That's pretty funny coming from some whack-job conspiracy Dumbass.

You know what ain't funny?
That our society has gotten so fucked up that people like YOU are roaming around in it.

Just what is it that you think you know about me, wack-job?

 

[pknopp]

I've read nothing of the sort. All the same, only two needed one

I have the benefit of having the local news stations here in Boston in my cable package.

Inly two may have needed them, but none had them. I looked it up this morning and apparently MA law also allows LEOs to request IDs from all individuals in a vehicle being stopped or investigated.,

It does NOT. This is repeated over and over and over but yet there is NO law anywhere that requires a non driver to have any sort of I.D. on them.

You all a bunch of "show me your papers" insane authoritarians and I'll never understand that.

 

[pknopp]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

All well and fine to believe and argue but if it you want it to be how it is, amend the Constitution.

That is actual Massachusetts Constitutional law. Article XVII.

Which never trump's the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Anathema]

You all a bunch of "show me your papers" insane authoritarians and I'll never understand that

You know why I’m an Authoritarisn? You REALLY want to know why???….

Because stupid motherfuckers like you and these eleven idiots get to vote in a Democracy and that scares the living shit out of sane people like me.

 

[danielpalos]

All States have something similar to this:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

 

[danielpalos]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

All well and fine to believe and argue but if it you want it to be how it is, amend the Constitution.

That is actual Massachusetts Constitutional law. Article XVII.

Which never trump's the Constitution of the United States.

Well regulated militia are a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

 

[pknopp]

You all a bunch of "show me your papers" insane authoritarians and I'll never understand that

You know why I’m an Authoritarisn? You REALLY want to know why???….

Because stupid motherfuckers like you and these eleven idiots get to vote in a Democracy and that scares the living shit out of sane people like me.

Wear a diaper.

 

[pknopp]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

All well and fine to believe and argue but if it you want it to be how it is, amend the Constitution.

That is actual Massachusetts Constitutional law. Article XVII.

Which never trump's the Constitution of the United States.

Well regulated militia are a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

Your argument has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

 

[danielpalos]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

Which in itself is not illegal.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

All well and fine to believe and argue but if it you want it to be how it is, amend the Constitution.

That is actual Massachusetts Constitutional law. Article XVII.

Which never trump's the Constitution of the United States.

Well regulated militia are a State's sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment.

Your argument has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

No, it hasn't. That decision was in error. Our Tenth Amendment applies and can easily nullify that decision.

 

[Anathema]

Wear a diaper

Sorry but while my Moral Life does not negatively affect your Immoral Life; the opposite cannot be said to be true.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.

.

they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.

Not a race, like black or white

What does that have to do with their origin, what are most folks who come from Algeria and Morocco?

Arabs.....a lot of Moors settled their after the fall of the Kingdom of Al-Andalus

LMAO if they settled there it means they came from somewhere else.

agreed. as i said they settled in the places you mentioned after the kingdom of Al- Anduslus fell

They settled there because they conquered it.

they didn’t settle there because they conquered it...the were refugees in the countries you mentioned because they were conquered and their kingdom destroyed

In 711, troops mostly formed by Moors from northern Africa led the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. The Iberian peninsula then came to be known in Classical Arabic as al-Andalus, which at its peak included most of Septimania and modern-day Spain and Portugal.

In 827, the Moors occupied Mazara on Sicily, developing it as a port. They eventually went on to consolidate the rest of the island.

Did you ever attend World History class.

the term Moor was created by the English centuries later to refer to the folks living in the kingdom.

They didn't just come into being when the Brits called them Moors, hell they probably called themselves something else.

 

[pknopp]

Wear a diaper

Sorry but while my Moral Life does not negatively affect your Immoral Life; the opposite cannot be said to be true.

You can believe the Constitution immoral all you like but all that gets you is a change of underwear.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

No they didn't.

yes Moors are what Brits called the folks that lived in the Kingdom of Al-Andalus....now Spain and Portugal

They conquered Southern Europe, they didn't originate from there.

that is where the term Moor originated.

Much like Americans didn’t originated in America.

Which means your first statement was false, when you said they originated from there.

no...you said they did...i said they were refugees from the Kingdom of al- Andulus

Struth:
somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin.

You lie so much you can't even remember what you said.

no, that’s true. Those folks living there were called Moors by the Brits

That's like saying the Pilgrims didn't exist until they came to America, which wasn't even called America at the time.

 

[Anathema]

You can believe the Constitution immoral all you like…

The US Constitution ceased to have any validity for the nation back in 1865. It’s not a valid argument for anything.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I've read nothing of the sort. All the same, only two needed one

I have the benefit of having the local news stations here in Boston in my cable package.

Inly two may have needed them, but none had them. I looked it up this morning and apparently MA law also allows LEOs to request IDs from all individuals in a vehicle being stopped or investigated.,

Do you know what that law is?