Gun Ban

Issues of a more global nature: National Politics, etc.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com
Post Reply
User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9689
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Thu 19, 2017 6:40 pm

Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jan Sun 22, 2017 1:23 pm

from...
"MA Attorney General Says She’s Not Banning Guns, Changing Laws"
http://valleypatriot.com/ma-attorney-ge ... ging-laws/
“Over the years, those weapons have still been sold. We wanted to be clear with gun dealers that they need to comply with the law and that those weapons are actually not for sale in Massachusetts. This is not a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. I’m not saying that we are going to take guns away from people. In fact, people who have purchased these guns over the years in good faith, believing they were able to purchase them, can keep them and they can resell them if they wish.”
Even in the unlikely event Healey's gun ban comes to be seen as not re-writing a long standing gun law - how is it she feels she has the authority to grant immunity to any group from any law she perceives as legal???

Clearly Healey does not have a firm grasp of the limits of her authority or is expecting some very advantageous findings from the state's courts

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Feb Thu 02, 2017 1:40 pm

Another Lawsuit launched against Maura Healey by GOAL
Jan 27, 2017
http://comm2a.org/images/PDFs/awb.pdf
With all the lawsuits launched against her and launched by her we have good reason to wonder just how all the money in legal fees to be spent on both sides will benefit the people who voted her into office

Someone should do a study - if only all the information were available to us.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12093
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Feb Mon 13, 2017 7:53 am

Flashback:

Image
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Feb Fri 17, 2017 4:41 pm

from
Constitution Society - Militia
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
"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
http://cdn-4.constitution.org/mil/geomason.jpg

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Feb Sun 19, 2017 3:01 pm

More Fun With Definitions - Well regulated
from Constitution Society
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

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.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Feb Mon 20, 2017 4:40 pm

Beyond the two lawsuits against AG Maura Healey's gun ban there is now also two bills before the Massachusetts Legislature to curb her attack on the 2nd Amendment

from article...
NRA aiming at AG Healey’s assault weapons enforcement notice
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/ ... ent-notice
BOSTON (AP) — The National Rifle Association is taking aim at Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey’s enforcement notice clarifying what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon under the state’s assault weapons ban.

The NRA is urging its supporters to call Massachusetts lawmakers to support two bills challenging the Democratic attorney general’s notice sent to gun sellers and manufacturers last July.

One bill would remove the attorney general’s authority to regulate firearms and would repeal the previous regulations. A second bill would eliminate the term “copy” from the statute, eliminating the premise behind Healey’s actions.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Feb Mon 27, 2017 12:54 pm

More info on two bills before legislature regarding gun ban
The Massachusetts General Court’s 2017 legislative session is in full swing with the introduction of numerous pro- and anti-gun bills. Among the pro-gun bills are Senate Docket 1157 and Senate Docket 1889. Both SD 1157 and SD 1889 seek to challenge the gun ban set forth last summer by Attorney General Healey’s “enforcement notice,” which greatly expands the Commonwealth’s definition of “assault weapon.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/18/massa ... z4Zp9HBMOY

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Mar Thu 02, 2017 3:40 pm

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation ... -color-law
Summary:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Mar Sun 05, 2017 2:03 pm

"The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate"
from...
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jp_seven.htm#top
by
By Gus Cotey, Jr.
The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.
ELITISTS
Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the "common people", thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.
AUTHORITARIANS
Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.
CRIMINALS
It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for "business." Also, it would seem that even non-violent or "white collar" criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.
THE FEARFUL
Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those "barbaric"enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.

The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.
IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.
SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.
[/b]THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their "civilized" universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practitioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.

The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but actually predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to insure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.

We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.


Of course we can all think of certain individuals who belong in several, if not most, of these categories

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Mar Sat 11, 2017 4:35 pm

Informative and in depth discussion with Massachusetts State Representatives on Marsha Healey's gun ban

Gun Law Roundtable Discussion With Massachusetts State Representatives PART 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxolZVn-r8

Gun Law Roundtable Discussion With Massachusetts State Representatives PART 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsXEzrZD-w

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12093
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Mar Sat 11, 2017 6:54 pm

:lol: Looks like ya gottem all covered, Vlad...

If it stinks then 'they' are probably in it!!

Nothing to do for them but turn around and go straight up!!

This is good work... Gun banders will soon be banned...

See how 'they' fall...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Mar Fri 17, 2017 1:14 pm

Worman v Baker (gun ban court case update)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05sIqkLNJAQ

Wisdom from Milennials ("Don't worry?""Don't believe it.")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTHYO79bSzw

More wisdom. (There is hope)
NSSF vs Mass. Attorney General - The Legal Brief!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAq53lOAi6Q

Real History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVBeZkqDxU

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4216
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Mar Wed 22, 2017 8:28 pm

Good news, Vladdy...
Last April, workers at Middlesex Hospital in Connecticut called the police to report that a psychiatric patient named Mark Russo had threatened to shoot his mother if officers tried to take the 18 rifles and shotguns he kept at her house. Mr. Russo, who was off his medication for paranoid schizophrenia, also talked about the recent elementary school massacre in Newtown and told a nurse that he “could take a chair and kill you or bash your head in between the eyes,” court records show.

The police seized the firearms, as well as seven high-capacity magazines, but Mr. Russo, 55, was eventually allowed to return to the trailer in Middletown where he lives alone. In an interview there recently, he denied that he had schizophrenia but said he was taking his medication now — though only “the smallest dose,” because he is forced to. His hospitalization, he explained, stemmed from a misunderstanding: Seeking a message from God on whether to dissociate himself from his family, he had stabbed a basketball and waited for it to reinflate itself. When it did, he told relatives they would not be seeing him again, prompting them to call the police.

As for his guns, Mr. Russo is scheduled to get them back in the spring, as mandated by Connecticut law.

“I don’t think they ever should have been taken out of my house,” he said. “I plan to get all my guns and ammo and knives back in April.”
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill Tuesday allowing people with Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP) to carry their weapons into restaurants and bars. However, under the law they would not be allowed to drink alcohol and carry a concealed weapon.

“This is not a guns in bars bill, it was never a guns in bars bill. It is illegal to carry and consume alcohol. It was yesterday, it will be tomorrow,” said Governor Haley.

Business owners still have the right to ban patrons from carrying firearms into their establishments.

“If a restaurant does allow concealed weapons, a criminal is less likely to go into a restaurant knowing that there are people who are protecting themselves,” said Governor Haley.

Governor Haley believes with this law crime rates will go down.
So it's either drink or carry. But why even go if you don't plan to drink? Protect every body else?

Poopsie's is one scary place. Be good if everyone, even dangerously mentally ill people, could carry...

Safety first!!!

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12093
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Mar Wed 22, 2017 8:35 pm

If they break the law then they have to burn... Unless illegals...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Mar Fri 24, 2017 10:06 am

“If a restaurant does allow concealed weapons, a criminal is less likely to go into a restaurant knowing that there are people who are protecting themselves,” said Governor Haley.

Governor Haley believes with this law crime rates will go down.
Ironically soft targets are not only exploited by insane gunmen - they are also taken advantage of by supposedly sane Attorney General who would take away that same protection from law abiding gun owners.

Who can say if Governor Haley is not correct. Unfortunately it would be hard to quantify crimes that ,could have been but, never were committed. I think the Attorney Generals, from at least six states on board with our own AG, know this only too well. They're more concerned with other things beside saving lives

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9689
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Mar Tue 28, 2017 6:33 am

Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4216
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Apr Mon 10, 2017 4:12 pm

A shooting at North Park Elementary School in San Bernardino, California, left two dead on Monday, according to multiple reports.

One female teacher and a male suspect are dead, and two students have been airlifted to a local hospital in critical condition, according to the local news outlets.
Awful to think stuff like this is business as usual in the USA. Hardly a ripple.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9689
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Apr Mon 10, 2017 4:44 pm

It is terrible what would you do to prevent it?
Good Dog

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12093
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Apr Tue 11, 2017 6:59 am

Call 911 and then form a crisis group if the second amendment is really dead...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Apr Sat 29, 2017 8:29 am

from...
GOAL Applauds Jones’ Efforts To Hold Healey Accountable 4/25/17
http://blog.goal.org/goal-applauds-jone ... countable/
“House Minority Leader Jones’ efforts to withhold Healey’s budget increase was the right thing to do,” said GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace, “the amendment stood for transparency and clarity in government and the constitution, we applaud that. Healey never disclosed documents requested in GOAL’s FOIA and never replied to multiple letters, (see bottom of page) supported by more than eighty members of the legislature.
from...
AG Healey Answers Some Questions, Not Others on Gun Directive
By Evan Lips | April 25, 2017, 19:42 EDT
“We’ve held numerous conversations with legislators and have provided significant information to them about the enforcement notice and our actions,” Healey told New Boston Post on Tuesday. “I continue to be available to answer their questions to the extent that there are any.”

Healey’s response doesn’t square with what House Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) told State House News Service after his budget amendment, one which called for withholding about $800,000 in state funds from her office until she responds to clarification requests, failed on a party-line vote.

Asked by discussion moderator and B.C. Law professor R. Michael Cassidy “what gave you the comfort to think you had the power to define a term in the statute that wasn’t defined by the Legislature,” Healey responded by pointing out the tendency for the issue to “become a real flashpoint.”

Healey never directly answered Cassidy’s query, and instead pivoted to talking about how her office “celebrated” a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the state of Maryland’s assault weapons ban, enacted under O’Malley.
Whatever it takes!

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4592
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Apr Sun 30, 2017 1:28 am

JIMD wrote:It is terrible what would you do to prevent it?
Good question.
Hardly a ripple.
Inquiring minds want to know. Why is there hardly a ripple over the number of lives saved "by guns" each year?
Why isn't there a survey to find out how many Leftist politicians and bureaucrats want total gun confiscation?
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » May Tue 02, 2017 7:21 am

Why isn't there a survey to find out how many Leftist politicians and bureaucrats want total gun confiscation?
Well you know there are probably far fewer of them now that hillary was soundly defeated. We're not talking about the Freedom Caucus here. These are not the most principled group on the hill.
t is terrible what would you do to prevent it?
Gun toting citizens are a big problem for criminals. There are the known crimes that were stopped by armed citizens. There are also the crimes that were not committed because the criminal thought the citizen might be armed. We will never have the problems Europe has so long as we have the 2nd Amendment

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » May Thu 11, 2017 6:10 pm

from...
"What Can One Man Do Against An Army?"
An Interesting Question
By Mike Vanderboegh (via TX.GUNS)
http://www.lenaburgs.net/Self_Defense/oneman.htm
Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert.

"A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money." --Everett Dirksen
The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » May Tue 16, 2017 10:25 am

The Second Amendment and The Militia Act of 1792 | What The Founders Meant by “Well Regulated Militia”
http://www.dailyunconstitutional.com/th ... d-militia/
The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Militia Act of 1792 | Addressing the question of why any citizen would need a military style assault rifle.
"The National Militia Act of 1792 Required Citizens To Own Military Rifles"
https://youtu.be/rudA9LESQi0
Forward to 1:10 to see the discussion about the Militia Act of 1792 (although he misquotes it as the”Militia Act of 1796″) and what the Second Amendment means when it says “a well regulated militia”:
So as you can see, after the adoption of the Second Amendment into the U.S. Constitution in 1791, the federal government decided to go one step further and create a law requiring that all men own and have ready a military gun in case they were called to service to defend their country Every farmer, blacksmith, preacher and furniture maker was required to keep their weapon at the ready. This gave the populace power to defend American people and property against foreign invaders, but, by default, also allowed people to protect themselves, their family, their property or their community from any threat. This was a right and responsibility that the government of the United States of American felt secure in entrusting to its citizens.
So the 2nd Amendment was intended by the founders to protect the government of the United States Government from invasion and insurrection as well as protect its citizenry from tyranny from both outside and in.

from Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
The Militia Act of 1795 was in turn amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. It was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.[9]
The establishment of the National Guard in 1903 may have annulled earlier Militia Acts but that does not mean it supersedes rights granted under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution

It does not take much much of a stretch to imagination what insurrections and invasions the government may need help with today even if it was the government itself who allowed 30 million illegal aliens into the country then turned them into discontented second class citizens by denying them voting rights. It would just be a matter of time. There is one thing worse the government could do - that is granting the illegals full amnesty with voting rights.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » May Fri 26, 2017 1:25 pm

Once again we see clearly how our whimsical Attorney General considers the rights of Massachusetts citizens as secondary to the rights of illegal aliens. Our state laws regarding AR-15 rifles seemed to be working well too until she arbitrarily decided they needed to be changed. Unilaterally decreed gun bans are ok in AG Healey's conflicted mind but existing immigration laws ? That's another matter. What agenda?
"Here’s where Massachusetts’s top elected officials stand on the push to become a ‘sanctuary state’" February 17, 2017
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/20 ... uary-state
Attorney General Maura Healey recently told The Boston Globe that she wasn’t opposed to the idea of Massachusetts as a sanctuary state and said that the legislature is “absolutely entitled to discuss and debate it.” But Healey also said she thinks the current system already works well.
“I’m certainly not opposed to a statewide designation,” she said. “I’m just of the view that it is working well at the local level right now.”

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » May Tue 30, 2017 10:06 am

Fun With Definitions...Hate Crimes

It is no secret Attorney General Maura Healey knew full well her unilateral ban would not decrease the incidence of shootings, with the use of AR-15 rifles, in Massachusetts . There is just no evidence she can cite in support. That being the case then what sorts of speculation can we legitimately arrive at as to what her motivations really were?

Here is one possibility.
What is a hate-motivated act and how does it differ from a hate crime?

A "hate-motivated act" is any incident in which an action taken by a person or group is perceived to be malicious or discriminatory toward another person or group based on bias or prejudice relating to such characteristics as race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity or any situation in which inter-group tensions exist based on such group characteristics. Hate-motivated acts may be violations of criminal law, such as "hate crimes," or violations of civil law, such as unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, education or public accommodations
How many Trump supporters, these days, can tell stories of incidents of what seems the very definition of Hate Crimes directed toward them

So now the question becomes - can the willful denial of one group's civil rights by an elected official be a violation of criminal law? There is an immunity provided by law for elected officials who act criminally if the act can be proven to be done by mistake . But was Attorney General Maura Healey's ban a mistake or a willful criminal act? An honest look at some of her subsequent actions and behaviors would be a strong indication.

Maura Healey should resign from office now.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4592
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » May Tue 30, 2017 2:37 pm

...or any situation in which inter-group tensions exist based on such group characteristics.
And does the definition of 'group' include white Christian supporters of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

I'm afraid of these antifa and anti-Trump people. I want my Safe Space.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » May Tue 30, 2017 5:55 pm

And does the definition of 'group' include white Christian supporters of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Emotionally, probably not. Look at how often the courts rule on issues through a purely emotional lens these days. Legally white Christians and Constitution supporters should have the same protections as anyone else, in my opinion.

If there were ever to be another amendment to the Constitution it should read something like...
"Congress shall make or allow no law which would set up official classes of people with separate protections under the law"
I'm afraid of these antifa and anti-Trump people. I want my Safe Space.
Will you be needing a petting puppy as well?

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jun Tue 06, 2017 6:19 pm

from GOAL Blog... http://blog.goal.org/critical-self-defe ... s-support/
'"Critical Self Defense Legislation Needs Your Support!"
Please take action today! Representatives Colleen Garry and Kate Campanale have written a letter to their colleagues in the state house urging them to support two of GOAL’s critical self-defense bills.

These bills are H.736 An Act Relative to Violent Protection Order Violations filed by Rep. Kate Campanale, and H.2492 An Act Relative to Defensive Electric Devicesfiled by Rep. Colleen Garry.

Take Action!

Please call your state representative and state senator TODAY at 617-722-2000. Please urge your state representative and senator to contact Rep. Garry’s office and add their signature of support to Rep. Garry and Rep. Campanale’s letter.

Info: The United States Supreme Court ruled in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) that the state’s ban on stun guns is unconstitutional and out of touch with traditional self-defense options. H.2492 will move Massachusetts in line with the majority of the country, where purchase and possession of these devices requires no license. H.736 will make invaluable information about self-defense options available for women, and others, who have filed for a protection order. Rep. Campanale stated it perfectly, “No one should have to second guess defending themselves for fear of legal repercussions; this bill will empower victims of domestic abuse across the state.”

Please help us move these bills forward, make a call today!
H. 736, An Act Relative to Violent Protection Order Violations requires the state to produce materials that detail all available self-defense options and what it takes to obtain them. The bill would also protect victims from being sued by their attackers. There is also language preventing revocation of a valid firearms license should a licensed individual be forced to use armed self-defense. The bill is currently referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.
H. 2492, An Act Relative to Defensive Electric Devices repeals a decades old ban on the sale of electronic self-defense devices in the Commonwealth, more commonly known as stun guns, and makes them available for public purchase without a license. It is currently referred to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4216
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jun Fri 23, 2017 9:57 pm


Delaware State Senator Brian Pettyjohn.

A Delaware state senator is facing felony charges after bringing a loaded handgun in his carry-on bag at the Salisbury Regional Airport in Maryland Thursday, according to The News Journal.
Sen. Brian Pettyjohn was traveling to the Southern Regional Education Board conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, when Transportation Security Administration agents discovered a 9mm handgun in his luggage.

Pettyjohn said he had accidentally left it inside a laptop case.

"It's just one of those things where I didn't check that one little flap, and there it was," Pettyjohn said to The News Journal. "Sometimes mistakes happen, whether you're a legislator or not."

Pettyjohn reportedly has a license for a concealed weapon in Delaware, but not in Maryland, The News Journal reported.

Pettyjohn was released without being arrested after authorities interviewed him. The felony charges against Pettyjohn can carry a 10-year prison sentence, the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office said.

"Personal protection of myself and my family is of the utmost importance," Pettyjohn told The News Journal.

"Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we'll try to find out what they're after here," said Bruce Rodgers, Pettyjohn's attorney. "There is certainly nothing which rises to the level of a felony carrying a firearm to an airplane," Rodgers said.
Cooler heads prevail?? What does that mean exactly? Give the guy a break because he's a legislator? Because he's a white legislator?

Let's see all you law and order types weigh in. The law is the law, no exceptions, we don't much care if he's probably a good man who made a simple mistake. He needs to pay for his crime.

Just ask John Cunningham about the law

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12093
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Jun Sat 24, 2017 5:51 am

Because he's a white legislator?
:lol: He's back...

Your droppings give you away...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4216
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jun Sat 24, 2017 6:14 am

So, give him a break or apply the law? Got an answer?

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9689
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jun Sat 24, 2017 6:59 am

Comey stated Hillary did not intend to brake the law, so she couldn't have broken any laws. The guy did not intend to brake the law so he was let go. Your Buddy soon to be deported. intentionally he broke a few laws


Goofball that was his lawyer speaking not the judge and jury. Fat Boy Kennedy killed someone when he was pooped faced behind the wheel And I bet you voted for him

The guy was charged with a felony what else should be done now?
Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4216
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jun Sat 24, 2017 7:32 am

What should be done? Throw the book at him. You guys have been whining for 8 + years saying apply the law. So do it! Guy tries to get through security with a loaded gun. Maybe he's lying about forgetting. Would that be a surprise? Guy said personal protection is paramount; maybe he was just afraid to fly without it and figured he could beat the system.

Why give him the benefit of the doubt? He wouldln't be the first guy to lie when charged; cops expect it.

If it's a felony, charge him with a felony. He's rich, he'll be fine.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9689
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jun Sat 24, 2017 7:36 am

Moonbat he was charged with a felony, and I bet people here are OK with that, what is your problem.
Good Dog

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12093
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Jun Sun 25, 2017 5:28 am

The 'guy' was probably only trying to bring the point to a now hyper conscience public...

We know how you are scared to death that so many citizens can carry guns... It also keeps the goons at bay...

When lefties are gunning republicans and police down and continue to threaten the point then its time we all became republicans... I'm even thinking about it...

You are in the hopper mr. macmushy, deal with it... Why get flushed down with that sorry mob??


* To answer the point of a dullard: It was John Wilkes Booth, an actor who last killed a president...
Now they continue over the scab media in the hopes of making that a pastime...
Guess john wilkes booth was also upset that Abe freed the slaves... Why don't you free yours?? Your inner slave master...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4216
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jun Sun 25, 2017 6:27 am

Sacrificing himself to prove a point? Sounds like the pizza gate shooter...

Do the crime do the time. True for all, no mercy no exceptions.

Check with Little Jeff, you got questions...

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12093
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Jun Sun 25, 2017 7:13 am

True for all, no mercy no exceptions.
:lol: Except for lefties, screwballs, fake media, and especially shrillary who was knee ( kankle ) deep in Russian deals, sold her soul for a few million swilly bux...

TSK TSK

It's all over... At least look ashamed...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 874
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jun Sun 25, 2017 1:28 pm

Pettyjohn reportedly has a license for a concealed weapon in Delaware, but not in Maryland, The News Journal reported.
Drivers licenses are issued by each state and recognized in universal reciprocity by every other state. Driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The problem with universal reciprocity for gun owners is that it is not a safety issue. It is a control issue. Your driverless car will be programmed to keep you safe and sound The driver from Delaware could not go to Maryland and effectively defend his life or his civil rights with his car.

This is not to say the progressives do not have future plans to severely reduce your driving privileges. What do you think Hillary as president, with all her fascist, control freak tendencies ,would have thought about you driving around wherever and whenever you want? It's just that it would be logically more expedient, and safer, to get rid of those pesky 2nd Amendment civil rights first. Then they can do pretty much anything.

With blue state Attorney Generals making up laws as they go along the confusion over gun laws, or any laws, state to state, will be one of their most useful tools - if that time ever comes.

Post Reply