educated people understand that attacking a stupid argument is not slander. I never said anything about Florida being shut down did I? I am talking about the fact that the party you support is the one that is far more hostile towards the rights of lawful gun owners than the GOP. Trump Derangement syndrome seems to be a common factor in much of the anti gun bullshit I see on this board. The Trump haters think that most gun owners support Trump so they push laws designed to harass Trump supporters. It has nothing to do with public safety and indeed, the leftist DAs and Police Chiefs in Democrat run urban areas are doing everything possible to allow violent criminals to flourish
a gun is like a parachute. You most likely will never NEED one but if you do, and don't have it, it is almost guaranteed you will never need one a second time around
you dont impress me a genius either, so there! RW always argue about obtuse meanings of words, 25 yrs ago i went to AA big book meetings and a few would tear apart the individual meanings of specific words, and those people were drunk within a few weeks
Calling people names like you did is slander, and the tool of the fools. I am not a Dem and I do not support their stance on this issue, but it seems you are totally incapable of getting the point here. Can you ask a friend to explain it to you? There is no such thing as Republican led "democrat regime". What is so complicated about it?
well when it comes to this topic, I am very well educated and your posts suggest you really aren't well informed. You might not be a dem but you certainly don't understand the term slander either.
you'd think on a topic that intimately involves Constitutional law, the concept of rights and government power would not be seen as obtuse. It would be like discussing rocket propulsion and having someone claim "thrust"is an obtuse term.
You didn't do a great job explaining, for anyone, like myself, who hadn't been following this story. It seemed a real overreach, that the MA legislature would ban gun sales, based on having any misdemeanor offense. Your linked article quickly showed that, for whatever reason, you'd left out the part about it being only misdemeanor gun related convictions. Then, if this were so baseless, it seemed odd that the circuit court of appeals, would not overrule it. It turns out that, why the Supreme Court overturned this, was because they saw preventing these people from buying a gun (presumedly, from a state gunshop), as an abridgement of their right to own a gun, which the state could not do. The rationale of the appeals court, according to your article, was that these people could still inherit a gun. I'll agree, that this seems some pretty shaky reasoning, but I wonder about other ways that a person, under this law, might have been able to own a gun, such as maybe just buying one, out of state. In short, I agree that the MA legislature went too far, and that was what led to their law's downfall. If, perhaps, they had only limited the duration of the gun offender's inability to purchase a gun, in the state, there might have been a better chance of it either not being taken up by the High Court, or maybe even being allowed to stand, depending on the length of the censure, against gun buying.
Calling people coward and mentally deranged pretty much meets the definition. If you prefer another word to describe such behavior, then be my guest.
State's don't have the right to violate the constitution and the 14th amendment requires that everything that applies to the feds applies to the states. Don't like it? See article V
You're describing whether or not someone could continue to follow cult dogma. Those that question cult dogma don't often continue to rely upon it.
i believe my personal peace and sanity is more important than getting involved in discussions with people who rely on RW media for their information
So... you have no rational or factual basis for your belief that states have the right to violate the US constitution. Thank you
feel free to carry on with your life, regardless of anybody else s opinion, mine included, i have no need to have no need to "win" arguments
So you don't like 14th amendment incorporation? You know who also didn't like 14th amendment incorporation? The Klan.
Your "opinion" is that states have a right to violate the US constitution. This is, of course, absolute nonsense.
I oppose anyone losing constitutional rights for misdemeanor offenses. I oppose people being required to possess a license to buy or own a gun.
So we disagree on that basic level, as I see-- and by the way, the Supreme Court has validated this view (it may have been been Scalia who'd written the opinion)-- certain requirements for gun ownership, such as licensing, as completely in accordance with the Constitution.
not at a federal level. and ever since FDR **** all over the tenth amendment, the Supreme court has made obvious errors when it comes to the tenth and second amendments. where did the federal government properly obtain the power to require licensing?
Nope: "Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64." The Court didn't address licensing in Heller; it wasn't part of the decision. They did address requiring a license to exercise a right in Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton. You might not be so happy with those decisions.
Well, this thread is about a MASSACHUSETTS Law. Remind me, again, is MA the name of our country, or of a state?
