Posted on 11/26/2005 12:43:07 PM PST by pabianice
You might want to weigh in on this one. Regards.
Jason, Do yourself a favor and go to
www.homefair.com
Click on state-to-state comparability of the cost of living.
You will find out that you are paying TWICE (or more) what it costs to live in other parts of the country.
There is a reason why Massachusetts is the only state in the union that is losing residents.
There is no parking in Harvard Square and Faneuil Hall is overrun by tourists.
And it's a lot safer where you can arm yourself.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?
Kinda like CFR? Wait a minute...
As the Leftists always want
and have a separate $ 250,000 liability insurance policy on each handgun
Nice way to **spit** "progressively" punish any enthusiast who likes guns
or have that handgun confiscated
Another tittilation for the liberals. (Do you think they rub their nipples as they read about this bill?)
Each such insurance policy must cover the potential theft and unlawful use of the gun. If the policy is inadequate to cover any subsequent court judgment against the lawful gunowner, he will be thrown in jail for five years for each offense.
Five years for failing to predict how much damage a thief will do after they steal your gun, or for failing to predict how sympathetic the victim will be. Not being omniscient will now be a crime.
In cases where a finding of fact and guilt is to be made, one member of any such committee must be a member of Stop Handgun Violence, Inc.
And a stacked jury, to boot. How nice.
Anyone who sells someone more than one gun a month shall be imprisoned for up to life. However, this law will not apply to anyone under the age of 18.
So a 16 year old gang member can do it, but a 64 year old man selling his collection to help pay for his wife's surgery will be imprisoned for failing to find 37 buyers for his 37 pieces.
Most disgustingly, this bill is being crammed through the Legislature under Homeland Security measures.
The libs are getting more and more clever. Pols can't vote against Security, after all, thanks to the GOP's approach since 9-11... therefore they can blame the GOP for its passage (if it is ever even noticed as deserving blame).
Letters of Marque and Reeprisal are noted in the Constitution... privately-owned battleships are not only recognized and respected, but they can be given incentives to be used against our enemies.
America could do without MA.
I tell ya....I hate this Fu***ng state. Can't wait to get my ass out.
I do. NRA Life Member.
So, Joe Blow the 18 year old, should be able to walk into a gun store, and buy a rocket launcher capable of taking out an armored car.
If you believe that, you're just a nut. I dare you to suggest THAT at an NRA meeting and see how well it goes over.
If you think that changes in weapons technology beyond anything the forefathers imagined make it necessary to restrict private ownership of overly-powerful arms, why not pass a constitutional amendment?
Notwithstanding the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have the power to restrict as it sees fit the possession or ownership of firearms which are designed to fire projectiles in excess of two inches in diameter, or of explosive shells whose energy output on detonation would exceed ____ joules. For purposes of this amendment, the term "inch" shall represent the common usage at the time this amendment is adopted, to wit, the distance travelled by light in 1/11,802,852,700 second.I don't think the NRA would work against such an amendment, but Sarah Brady et al. would fight it vigorously. Any idea why?
The intent of the second amendment is that the PEOPLE shall have the means to forcibly remove the government if the need should ever arise... read the Federalist Papers and the commentaries of the Founding Fathers... and that means that the 2nd Amendment specifically protects "arms" that can counter the arms held by the government. Arms that are equal to what the government can bring to bear... Military armaments. Extending the 2nd Amendment to modern military armaments is merely a logical extension of the Founding Fathers' intent unless you think that the 2nd Amendment only protects flintlocks and black powder weapons. "If you believe that, you're just a nut," to quote someone who said that recently to me. Incidentally, some of those who would give up their rights do indeed believe exactly that!
Unfortunately, gun owners allowed the government start defining "Arms" back in the 1930s when they effectively infringed the right of the people to own a whole class of military arms including fully automatic weapons and rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than a certain arbitrary limit or with calibres greater than .50. They did this, not be outlawing them, but by TAXING them. They have continued to infringe our right to keep and bear military firearms by redefining the definitions... now they are working on banning all semi-automatic weapons and the .50 calibres. Many firearms are already banned merely because they LOOK "military".
A half-hearted attempt was made to reverse the severe infringement of our rights when the Miller case was brought before the US Supreme Court. Contrary to popular (especially among the anti-gun lobby) the Miller decision did NOT deny the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Miller decision hinged on the non-recognition of the military usefulness of a sawed off shotgun... the Court said that if it had been shown that the short-barrelled shotgun had military usefullness, then the Supremem Court would have reversed the lower court. The majority on the Court ordered the Miller case be sent back to the lower court for just that purpose, to hear evidence of the military usage of a short-barrelled shotgun, which would have been easy to demonstrate since they were issued by the US government for trench warfare, but those involved did not pursue it, one being dead and the other already having served his sentence and lacked the money to do it.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution is the lynch pin that guarantees the protections of all the other Rights, including those enumerated and recognized by the Constitution and also those we have by birthright as human beings. It cannot do that if we are forced to try and defend our liberties with .22s and single shot rifles because the very government we may have to face has disarmed us by defining what are "Arms.".
There are many NRA members who agree with this philosophy. There are also NRA members who believe that the 2nd Amendment only protects their hunting rifles and shotguns...
Because it's not neccessary, they clearly didn't mean anything, anytime, anywhere, and nobody but a insane fanatic would ever think they did.
If you are going to say anybody can have any arms anywhere under the 2nd ammendment, how about a nuke? I like nukes, they are fun. I want one to keep in the trunk of my car just in case the Chinese ever invade, so then I can take out a whole battalion of them. And if I accidentally set it off when I get drunk in downtown New York? Oops. Sorry. There goes 20 million people.
That's clearly idiotic.
This is nuts. I'm not for registering guns. I'd favor overturning all the loopholes you have to go through to get a handgun. I'm against the so-called 'assult weapons ban' and I cheered when the congress let it die. I think the so-called 'gun show loophole' is a GOOD thing, not a bad one, and I wouldn't favor overturning it. I even DO think that it's OK for certain people (i.e. emotionally stable, careful people with good backgrounds) to own rocket launchers and tanks and stuff.
But give me a break! I'm somehow anti-second ammendment because I don't think that anybody should be able to walk into a store and buy anti-aircraft rockets? That's perposterous.
No, that's the price of freedom.
bump
Massachusetts is a hopeless state. All conservatives should move. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Maine would be a good choice.
So:
A. Freedom is either 100% or 0%, there is no in between, (which, BTW, was exactly what the founders were fighting for, a balance between totalitarianism and anarchy, a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community) thus
B. Private citizens should be able to own an atomic bomb. If one accidentally takes out San Diego, oops. Bummer.
You really ought to try reading, say, the Federalist Papers, or one of the many books about the Constitutional Convention. If you think the founders were extremist libertarians, you've got another thing coming.
Law-abiding citizens would never have the need to own personal nukes or anti-aircraft rockets. Which means that all your previous posts were red herrings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.