Boston globe Mill article

another liberal idiot applying "today" to 230 yrs ago... They do it in language, actions, pretty much everything.. f***tards, all of them..

I'm in the EMTDAD militia. the 2nd Amendment doesn't' require me to be sanctioned by any government.. and I'm a f***ing 5-star General in my f***ing militia.. .now f*** off!
 
Just happened to see this "article" posted on MSN from Harry Bartnick of Beverly as a follow-up to the Mill globe article... :rolleyes:

Rather than splitting hairs over the distinction between selling a completely assembled assault rifle vs. selling parts of one, why not adhere to the entirety of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

A militia, by definition, is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Therefore, every application for a permit to own a military-style gun should contain these three questions:

What is the name of the militia that you are a member of?

What is the name of the state that your militia is sanctioned by?

What is your rank in that militia?

Not a member of a well-regulated militia? Sorry, no assault rifle.

One wonders what part of “well-regulated militia” is it that our “originalists” don’t understand?

Harry Bartnick

Beverly
Another guy who does not understand English well enough to grasp how a prefatory clause relates to an operative clause.
 
Another guy who does not understand English well enough to grasp how a prefatory clause relates to an operative clause.
In fairness it could of been written a little better. Had the founders knew the bullshit that would go on there's no doubt they would of elaborated or written it completely different. But at the time, they thought that no gun control was the only obvious solution and the only morons who'd not like it would be someone like the King. I can't imagine the founders thinking their would be this large domestic push to remove it under the guise of public safety.
 
Just happened to see this "article" posted on MSN from Harry Bartnick of Beverly as a follow-up to the Mill globe article... :rolleyes:

Rather than splitting hairs over the distinction between selling a completely assembled assault rifle vs. selling parts of one, why not adhere to the entirety of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

A militia, by definition, is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Therefore, every application for a permit to own a military-style gun should contain these three questions:

What is the name of the militia that you are a member of?

What is the name of the state that your militia is sanctioned by?

What is your rank in that militia?

Not a member of a well-regulated militia? Sorry, no assault rifle.

One wonders what part of “well-regulated militia” is it that our “originalists” don’t understand?

Harry Bartnick

Beverly
I've posted this before, but for the people like Mr. Bartnick who, as pointed out by @DispositionMatrix, doesn't understand how a prefatory clause relates to an operative clause, I would asked them to change four words in the Second. Change "regulated militia" to "educated Electorate" and "bear Arms" to "read Books". You get:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Would he interpret that as meaning only college educated voters can keep and read books? Or that, because we need informed voters, books can't be banned?
 
Just happened to see this "article" posted on MSN from Harry Bartnick of Beverly as a follow-up to the Mill globe article... :rolleyes:

Rather than splitting hairs over the distinction between selling a completely assembled assault rifle vs. selling parts of one, why not adhere to the entirety of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

A militia, by definition, is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Therefore, every application for a permit to own a military-style gun should contain these three questions:

What is the name of the militia that you are a member of?

What is the name of the state that your militia is sanctioned by?

What is your rank in that militia?

Not a member of a well-regulated militia? Sorry, no assault rifle.

One wonders what part of “well-regulated militia” is it that our “originalists” don’t understand?

Harry Bartnick

Beverly
go for it, all it will take is for one state to "sanction" a militia that will allow non-residents to become members and never call them up. Surely there would be at least one state that wants to slap something like this in the face. Then we can all get true assault rifles, complete with full auto. Ya buddy, bring it on.

F'n idiot.
How about you stop trying to twist the meaning of 2a
 
Just happened to see this "article" posted on MSN from Harry Bartnick of Beverly as a follow-up to the Mill globe article... :rolleyes:

Rather than splitting hairs over the distinction between selling a completely assembled assault rifle vs. selling parts of one, why not adhere to the entirety of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

A militia, by definition, is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Therefore, every application for a permit to own a military-style gun should contain these three questions:

What is the name of the militia that you are a member of?

What is the name of the state that your militia is sanctioned by?

What is your rank in that militia?

Not a member of a well-regulated militia? Sorry, no assault rifle.

One wonders what part of “well-regulated militia” is it that our “originalists” don’t understand?

Harry Bartnick

Beverly
Pathetic. Liberals really need to become more creative. This old BS is a big yawn. Try, try again loony lefties. 🤔
 
Just happened to see this "article" posted on MSN from Harry Bartnick of Beverly as a follow-up to the Mill globe article... :rolleyes:

Rather than splitting hairs over the distinction between selling a completely assembled assault rifle vs. selling parts of one, why not adhere to the entirety of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

A militia, by definition, is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Therefore, every application for a permit to own a military-style gun should contain these three questions:

What is the name of the militia that you are a member of?

What is the name of the state that your militia is sanctioned by?

What is your rank in that militia?

Not a member of a well-regulated militia? Sorry, no assault rifle.

One wonders what part of “well-regulated militia” is it that our “originalists” don’t understand?

Harry Bartnick

Beverly
All the crap before the comma notwithstanding, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
It would be better for a modern 2A to read:

A well armed citizen, being necessary to protect their rights with deadly force, the right for the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A dog ate my salad, which kind of pissed me off for a bit, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
 
I've posted this before, but for the people like Mr. Bartnick who, as pointed out by @DispositionMatrix, doesn't understand how a prefatory clause relates to an operative clause, I would asked them to change four words in the Second. Change "regulated militia" to "educated Electorate" and "bear Arms" to "read Books". You get:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Would he interpret that as meaning only college educated voters can keep and read books? Or that, because we need informed voters, books can't be banned?
That is absolutely f'ing brilliant.
 
In fairness it could of been written a little better. Had the founders knew the bullshit that would go on there's no doubt they would of elaborated or written it completely different. But at the time, they thought that no gun control was the only obvious solution and the only morons who'd not like it would be someone like the King. I can't imagine the founders thinking their would be this large domestic push to remove it under the guise of public safety.
It was perfect written english at the time. I don't think they envisioned how stooopid society would become.
 
AND...Here we go again...

The Mill Part Deux - The Plebes get angry. BOSTON GLOBE. 9.24 5PM

Outraged residents of Littleton are calling for a crackdown on the town’s burgeoning gun industry after they learned from a Globe story that an old elastic mill near the center of town is home to the largest cluster of federally licensed gun manufacturers and dealers in the nation. The vendors include dozens who were exploiting loopholes and gray areas in the law to sell military-style firearms and other firearms forbidden by the state.

Town officials said they’ve never been so inundated by concern about an issue, with many residents calling for the 80-plus gun tenants in the building to be forced out.

Cont...
 
I like how they're braying about how it's a huge problem to them but yet the mill has been there for years and has had like dozens of gun tenants in it for over a decade.... but now it's suddenly magically it's a big problem only because the glob writes about it....
 
I like how they're braying about how it's a huge problem to them but yet the mill has been there for years and has had like dozens of gun tenants in it for over a decade.... but now it's suddenly magically it's a big problem only because the glob writes about it....
The Mill probably would of been just fine if all sorts of residents of that building didn't sit down for a friggen interview with people who obviously are up to no good.
 
I just can't believe that the dealers named in the article spoke to the reporters without knowing full well that whatever they said would be taken out of context and used against us. Jack.
I can believe it.

Long ago, I gave up being surprised by the stupidity of people. Myself included.
 
"On Monday morning, the Select Board held a closed-door meeting to discuss purchasing the privately owned building so the board could control its fate. That evening, the Planning Board considered drafting a zoning ordinance to strictly limit new gun dealers in town. The select board plans to hold a meeting this week to respond to resident concerns about the Globe’s findings."

There were findings? That they are operating within the law?
 
Back
Top Bottom