Is it possible for my buddy to get his ltc licence back

[cekim]

How about homes that weren't recently built? I've recently purchased my house with pre-existing code violations by contractors that didn't even get permits. I know I said permits...more BS communism by our towns and cities!

Forget about homes. How about the contractors that were held liable after the tunnel collapsed on that car a few years back.

I don't have a fear of my gun being seen by others because concealed means concealed. Man I wish I have a nickel every time I've heard that phrase on this site.

You have a talent for failed analogies.

If you buy a home that predates regulations, you have a responsibility (called caveat emptor) to satisfy yourself that it is safe. You can do that yourself or hire an expert.

As for the tunnel, again, the analogy fails... Where did I say that all regulation is impossible?

You are talking about regulation of commercial activity (building things) which, in the case of a tunnel, have a broad public impact and do not involve fundamental rights.

I am talking about someone's fundamental right to self defense and the stringent due process protection against government infringement of that right.

These are apples and oranges.

We talk about irrational fear of guns frequently on this site because people like you compare an inanimate object locked in a car to a tunnel with substandard (not just by code, but by fact) construction techniques that dropped heavy things on passers by.

To illustrate the failure of your analogy - even ignoring the weight of a fundamental right like self defense:
If a tunnel is built substandard and not meticulously maintained, what happens? Even if no active malicious criminal activity takes place, that tunnel will collapse and harm someone.

Now the gun in even an unlocked car - what happens if no active malicious criminal activity takes place (i.e. theft, trespass and then pulling that trigger)?

 

[Friday]

What kind of question is that? Without government every day life would be like Mad Max The Road Warrior where I could run you over with my car because I don't like this post. What kind of life would that be? Like it or not we need government and law and order.
As I said before earlier I agree the the scumbag should not have been released. Here's where we continue to disagree: I can't possibly see how someone like that should or could have the right to bear arms.
I also don't disagree that LEO's have discretion and he could have given the guy a pass. Knowing how things are here in mass and knowing that you're highly unlikely to get a free pass on a gun violation would you or would you not agree that it's extremely stupid to leave a loaded gun in plain view in a car?

An interesting, if not paradoxical, belief system.

From your statement, I read: Man can't be trusted to govern himself. It will result in anarchy. Man, therefore needs government.

What comprises Government? The very anarchistic Man that can't be trusted. :headscratch

 

[taggart]

Life without the gov't:

(and IBTL!!)

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

If there was no Victim how can there be a crime? Guns despite what liberals think will not go and kill anyone on their own. The gun regardless if it was loaded or not was in a locked car which technically should be considered locked storage, why MA is to dumb to realize this is beyond me. Should he get his LTC back absa-freakin-lutly. And could a society and exist without a government, of course they could, and here is why the vast majority of people can get along with each other the ones that wish to harm and commit real crimes would be singled out and taken care of. People would self police themselves. People aren't stupid we dont need the government to tell us whats right and wrong.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Life without the gov't:

(and IBTL!!)

so what your saying is without government, we all get life jackets and AK-47s............. who needs government

 

[taggart]

so what your saying is without government, we all get life jackets and AK-47s.............

Dude, get thee to the survivalist section! Most of us already have those on hand.

 

[HTRN]

Life without the gov't:

(and IBTL!!)

Funny, or we can look at what the African countries really have, and that is violent rulers comprised of thugs and warlords. I consider that a government, just not one that's self-appointed.

 

[flintoid]

I agree it's a bad law but didn't know it was okay for me to break it. The only advice I'm getting is that it's okay to break any stupid law as long as nobody gets hurt.

no one is telling you to break any law. Your blind support of the law is what everyone is trying to understand.

It is one thing to obey a law and disapprove of it. It is a different thing to obey it and support it as "just the way things are." Taking a bad law for granted is the first step to losing your freedom.

I obey that law because I don't want to lose my freedom over bullshit. But I disapprove of it and disapprove of anyone that suffers repercussions due to it's negligence.

 

[cekim]

Funny, or we can look at what the African countries really have, and that is violent rulers comprised of thugs and warlords. I consider that a government, just not one that's self-appointed.

Was about to say the same...

Self appointed? Not, at all - they have consent and support of a constituency.

 

[Friday]

Life without the gov't:

(and IBTL!!)

Exactly! these guys should form a government, which could then regulate the use of swimming aids while shooting, determine the timing of "safe hours" for when it's OK to shoot kids on the street, and develop regulations and laws dictating the appropriate shooting foot and handwear.

There is a government in play here, it is just not recognized politically, and it supports anarchy. I also think it unlikely that this form of government is representative.

 

[HTRN]

Exactly! these guys should form a government, which could then regulate the use of swimming aids while shooting, determine the timing of "safe hours" for when it's OK to shoot kids on the street, and develop regulations and laws dictating the appropriate shooting foot and handwear.

There is a government in play here, it is just not recognized politically, and it supports anarchy. I also think it unlikely that this form of government is representative.

Actually, anarchy would be the self-regulation, absent a state. I like to think of "Galt's Gulch" as the best example of anarchy.

Anarchy, meaning "lawlessness" is not the traditional meaning, and I think there are better terms to use.

I think you mean chaos.

 

[Rick8325]

no one is telling you to break any law. Your blind support of the law is what everyone is trying to understand.

It is one thing to obey a law and disapprove of it. It is a different thing to obey it and support it as "just the way things are." Taking a bad law for granted is the first step to losing your freedom.

I obey that law because I don't want to lose my freedom over bullshit. But I disapprove of it and disapprove of anyone that suffers repercussions due to it's negligence.

I'm not looking at it as I'm happy he lost it because it's the law, I'd rather he not have his LTC because he broke 2 simple Mass firearms laws (not concealed and not under his control and whatever else we haven't been told about the incident) and in the end it only makes things harder for everyone else that wants less stricter to very minimal firearms laws in this state. He didn't live in a green town and he may not even had an unrestricted LTC but everyone is upset he got his God given rights taken away. To me, this was a step backwards for laws and for that town on becoming a more pro gun town to that CLEO.

 

[Friday]

Actually, anarchy would be the self-regulation, absent a state. I like to think of "Galt's Gulch" as the best example of anarchy.

Anarchy, meaning "lawlessness" is not the traditional meaning, and I think there are better terms to use.

I think you mean chaos.

LOL, agreed. Terminology and agreement of definition is the heart of all philosophical debates. Shall we all reset and create consensus on terminology?

From Webster's:


an·ar·chy
   [an-er-kee] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.
anarchism ( def. 1 ) .
4.
lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.
confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

 

[Rick Roma]

no. You are not reading what I am typing.

I agree that someone can lose their rights if they hurt someone else's pursuit of a happy life. If someone trespasses upon someone else's god given rights, then they are up for losing their own.

Not what I "feel" like. You "feel" that this man is irresponsible to the point where he deserves to lose his rights. And I am asking you in rebuttal: how has he harmed anyone?

And you fail to answer that question. Instead you post trivial bullshit like this.

Answer the question: how has this man harmed anyone?

really? Not reading? what is this then:

If the man was to harm someone? Let's say, shoot someone innocent? Then he can lose his rights. But as it stands, the man has done no harm, to anyone.

So you think one person can lose their rights because you agree they should yet someone else should not because you disagree. Got it.

He has not harmed anyone. I hope this satisifies your desire for your "gotchya moment" but I hope you understand that one does not have to hurt someone to violate a law.

 

[cekim]

I'm not looking at it as I'm happy he lost it because it's the law, I'd rather he not have his LTC because he broke 2 simple Mass firearms laws (not concealed and not under his control and whatever else we haven't been told about the incident) and in the end it only makes things harder for everyone else that wants less stricter to very minimal firearms laws in this state. He didn't live in a green town and he may not even had an unrestricted LTC but everyone is upset he got his God given rights taken away. To me, this was a step backwards for laws and for that town on becoming a more pro gun town to that CLEO.

Well, let's start with bold item #1 MGL cite please? Oh, that's right, you can't find one.

as for bold #2 and #3, I think this gets to the heart of the issue for you - you have adopted the "wrong thinking must be punished," dogma of socialism and fascism that says that anyone who is not "good for the cause," should be punished and/or removed so as to better the cause.

That's what bugs me so much about what you are saying, it has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong," and everything to do with your own selfish motives.

 

[Gillham]

This thread is like herpes.

Shit. I'm screwed now aren't I?

I know what you mean man! Over the limit = under arrest, tax evasion, selling drugs in a school zone, and copyright infringement, whatever!

A contractor who built a house with many code violations could only be held liable if someone is harmed. Drunk driving should only be an offense if someone dies. I finally get what you've been preaching now!

Cops are in place to serve and protect. Not be your buddy or life mentor. That's Dog the Bounty Hunter's job.

Except in the State of Tennessee, where they'll take your money if you keep it wrapped in rubberbands.

 

[Rick Roma]

dependant on others to give you a definition of a word, to tell you how to live... i could say ANYTHING and it wouldn't matter. if i have to TELL you how to be a free man then you are clearly unable to handle the responsibility of being one.



well, considering i hate my house i'd encourage you to do that. i want you to do it right now in fact.

now to your hypothetical situation--yes. yes, you would be. in fact there is nothing stopping you even now. so hypothetically if you wanted to burn down my house and if i liked my house i'd be just as free to put a bullet in you if i saw you running up my driveway with a molotov in hand as you would be to burn down my house because you think i'm an a**h***. if i didn't want you to burn down my house i'd be your buddy and we could go slap the asses of fine ladies together while enjoying some brewskis, and if you didn't want to get shot you wouldn't try to burn down my house.

I'm not dependent on you for anything. I just want to understand your definition of something you claim I don't understand so we can talk about that.


So there's nothing stopping me from burning down your house right now? The thought of spending the rest of my life in jail is a bit of a deterrent.

 

[Boghog1]

I'm not looking at it as I'm happy he lost it because it's the law, I'd rather he not have his LTC because he broke 2 simple Mass firearms laws (not concealed and not under his control and whatever else we haven't been told about the incident) and in the end it only makes things harder for everyone else that wants less stricter to very minimal firearms laws in this state. He didn't live in a green town and he may not even had an unrestricted LTC but everyone is upset he got his God given rights taken away. To me, this was a step backwards for laws and for that town on becoming a more pro gun town to that CLEO.

This statement is straight out of the anti2a playbook, don't fall into the trap. They want you to think a gun is a privilege, does bad spelling by a poster make all posters look bad?

 

[LandOLakeS]

I'm not dependent on you for anything. I just want to understand your definition of something you claim I don't understand so we can talk about that.


So there's nothing stopping me from burning down your house right now? The thought of spending the rest of my life in jail is a bit of a deterrent.

oh, i thought most people don't go around burning houses because its immoral. It has nothing to do with the law, but what you think is right and wrong. Would you like your house burnt down? No, so don't burn other peoples houses. Seems simple enough, no law needed. there should also be a fear of the property owner hunting you down.

You should just go ahead and give your definition of freedom first. My definition of freedom is, the ability to do as you like as long as it does not harm anybody else or damage other people's property.

 

[cekim]

This statement is straight out of the anti2a playbook, don't fall into the trap. They want you to think a gun is a privilege, does bad spelling by a poster make all posters look bad?

People who post with bad spelling should be punished so as to not make NES look bad.

 

[Rick Roma]

Not sure.. Interesting.

Do you beleive that you hold full title to yourself?

Do you beleive that is is wrong to use force, or the threat of force against another except in defense of self?

ETA: Sorry, I know that I would exist without the state. The smallest minority.

I answered your question. Care to answer mine?

Cricket sound? Pardon me for not responding quickly enough.

Do you beleive that you hold full title to yourself?

Do you beleive that is is wrong to use force, or the threat of force against another except in defense of self?

Hold full title to yourself? What? Like a car or a piece of property?

I would not use force against another except for self defense or in defense of a family member so I suppose that one is a "yes".

 

[lancecolonel]

I'm not looking at it as I'm happy he lost it because it's the law, I'd rather he not have his LTC because he broke 2 simple Mass firearms laws (not concealed and not under his control and whatever else we haven't been told about the incident) and in the end it only makes things harder for everyone else that wants less stricter to very minimal firearms laws in this state. He didn't live in a green town and he may not even had an unrestricted LTC but everyone is upset he got his God given rights taken away. To me, this was a step backwards for laws and for that town on becoming a more pro gun town to that CLEO.

but this should be a perfect example of why the storage laws don't need to exist at all. the law was broken (GASP!) and everyone went home safe at the end of the day. (and i am willing to bet that the storage law gets broken hundreds of times daily across this great state....) this should tell most people that the law may be just a bit too strict, or the penalty way too severe.
(don't use a drunk driving anaology to rebut this please....a gun sitting on a car seat is not in the same ballpark as a drunk sitting in the driver's seat)

 

[HTRN]

Hold full title to yourself? What? Like a car or a piece of property?

Exactly.

Yes?

 

[flintoid]

really? Not reading? what is this then:



So you think one person can lose their rights because you agree they should yet someone else should not because you disagree. Got it.

No, you don't get it. You are failing to comprehend the reasoning behind it. I am justifying when someone loses their rights. And you are not. You fail to answer my questions.

He has not harmed anyone. I hope this satisifies your desire for your "gotchya moment"

This is not about personal satisfaction. You are starting to get personal in this discussion, which turns on your emotions and turns off your brain. This is about you understanding the following:

but I hope you understand that one does not have to hurt someone to violate a law.

I disagree with laws that punish people for doing no harm upon someone else. I do understand that one does not have to hurt someone to violate a law. But that doesn't mean that I blindly get behind them and support them as you seem to do.

This is dangerous to retaining your freedoms. If you take every law as "the law of the land" and as permanent without questioning them and their effect on your freedoms, then you are signing over your freedom as a individual.

 

[Rick Roma]

No, the narrow circumstances under which the state can take away someone's rights is actually pretty well defined by principles that go back before the Constitution - but the Constitution further restricted it. Obviously if someone can be arrested and imprisoned, then the concept presented in the BOR allows for this. The important thing is that it sets an extremely high and specific bar(s) to do it.

Your argument is the typical progressive one "well, if it is possible to abridge rights then we can decide to abridge them as we see fit since there is no absolute prohibition of it."

Bull!@#$!

This whole concept of pre-crime (convicting people of malum prohibitum acts which have had no harmful effect on another citizen) is BS. No one was harmed. PERIOD. Is it reasonable for a cop to notice it, contact him and say, "hey buddy, not a good idea"? Sure, that's what being part of a community and in particular a police officer of it, involves.

Let's say a cop discovers an illegal immigrant. He was caught driving with no license. He wasn't harming anyone. Should the cop give him a free pass and just tell him it's not a good idea to be in the country illegally?

 

[Boghog1]

Let's say a cop discovers an illegal immigrant. He was caught driving with no license. He wasn't harming anyone. Should the cop give him a free pass and just tell him it's not a good idea to be in the country illegally?

Ah but he has harmed someone, you me and the rest of the country by using resources he has not paid for but that you and I have paid for. It doesn't have to be physical harm, it can be economic.

 

[atilla]

This thread is like herpes.

no shit, we need statist valtrex.

ironically enough your post is #357 which is exactly what would take the pain away in a hurry.

i am seriously about to throw up my lunch reading the blind statist bullshit being posted in here.

 

[drgrant]

I'm not looking at it as I'm happy he lost it because it's the law, I'd rather he not have his LTC because he broke 2 simple Mass firearms laws (not concealed and not under his control and whatever else we haven't been told about the incident) and in the end it only makes things harder for everyone else that wants less stricter to very minimal firearms laws in this state.

I really doubt it made any difference whatsoever in terms of gun politics in the town of issuance. This nostrum that a given chief is going to "go anti on everyone else" because of a paper gun law violation by a mere handful of licensed people in his town is pretty absurd.

Your braying about this is kind of like a newspaper having a front page article that says "Man leaves keys in ignition of car, with windows rolled down, in downtown area. No deaths or injuries were reported." How stupid does that sound to you?

-Mike

 

[LandOLakeS]

Let's say a cop discovers an illegal immigrant. He was caught driving with no license. He wasn't harming anyone. Should the cop give him a free pass and just tell him it's not a good idea to be in the country illegally?

I don't think that's even close to the same thing. An illegal does not pay taxes, he is harming the community and should be removed.

 

[Rick Roma]

then how will this man's firearm in a locked vehicle ever harm someone?

Should my wife be ticketed for too much cleavage since, you know, it's going to tempt someone to rape her?

Better yet- should a stranger staring at her tits be arrested for attempted rape?

Under your logic, this should be the case.

Can you cite the excessive cleavage law as well as the law against staring at same?

Thanks



Hint: it can harm someone if a passerby sees it and steals it.