On Mass Pike today and saw a huge anti assault weapon sign

[Boghog1]

@spcantwell could you enlighten me as to why the founding fathers thought it necessary to put the 2nd in the BOR you seem to know but as of yet I have failed to glean why it is you feel the founding fathers wanted that particular piece in there.

 

[MightyGreek]

I am sure there has been at least 1 person to inquire about it. Maybe not. Maybe the system is crooked too, and laws don't apply to some people.

I'll call tomorrow and check back in.

I got pretty drunk last year while reading another thread on here about that sign so I decided to email the DOT. There is an agreement between the MA and the feds that limits the size of billboards on highways (although the pdf has since been taken down from where it was back then). They said it wasn't their issue and to contact the federal highway administration. I just never followed up.

 

[ptanks56]

Probably already said I'm sure, "An armed society is a polite society"

If you take the "kids" injured by firearms, and break it down to age groups ie. 13yo and younger, I bet the number drops significantly. The parent less teens are the real danger.

I own sporting arms of many configurations because I want them and I can legally have them.

 

[Bostoned]

I drive into Boston for work everyday and I flip that sign the bird every time I drive past it.

 

[Gman021]

Going solely on the documents in question it refers to people being familer with military grade weapons in order for citizen to transition to a milita with minimal training.

If you want to assume that YOU personaly know what was in the mind of the constitutional congress when they wrote it... good for you. If you know that much about what they where thinking, why didnt they actauly write what you are claiming they ment?

 

[flintoid]

And you havnt learned how to play with others. Being a 'crazy, govmnt hateing, gun toteing, etc...' who runs arround telling everyone that they want a machine gun so they can shoot up the evil govmnt troops when ever you dont feel like paying taxes anymore... just makes the people who dont know anything about guns think that we are all like that. Which makes them want to ban all guns, THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Is that really the train of thought of the people who are against the right to bear arms? Take a moment and read what you wrote.

Sounds like someone has their panties in a twist. And is being a little bitch about it.

 

[MassMark]

And you havnt learned how to play with others. Being a 'crazy, govmnt hateing, gun toteing, etc...' who runs arround telling everyone that they want a machine gun so they can shoot up the evil govmnt troops when ever you dont feel like paying taxes anymore... just makes the people who dont know anything about guns think that we are all like that. Which makes them want to ban all guns, THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

I love where people go when they're backed against the wall...Nicely done...

 

[ericcif]

I'm absolutely pro gun person,

but just for my curriosity, why would you need an assault rifle ?

Because what else would I put my AR and AK magazines in?

 

[cekim]

Is that really the train of thought of the people who are against the right to bear arms?

Sounds like someone has their panties in a twist. And is being a bitch.

I suspect there are plenty of people who do think this. It was so "unpleasant" to wrong-think this for many decades following GCA68 that the NRA went down their "hunter's rights" rat-hole.

As I said, I understand, to a degree, why people fall for the "government as a force of good" nonsense and all of its trappings. Taking responsibility for yourself can be scary, but the payoff is well worth it. You can't enjoy the false sense of comfort of buying into a paternal government concept if you understand that it could, at some point, become your oppressor:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

What I find more surprising is that if the prior 2000 years hadn't already proved this to you, as it did to the founders, then the most recent 100 years provided even more profound examples of why our Constitution is structured the way that it is.

The founders understood that a person had a fundamental right to self defense. They understood a person might be threatened by crime and that was largely covered by English Common Law at the time and your right to self defense. They understood that you might be threatened by an invading force, whether Native Americans, or another nation and a militia might be needed to be mustered to defend against this.

They also understood that you might be threatened by your own government if it becomes tyrannical.

2A's broad prohibition on infringement (even greater than 1A which says "Congress shall make no law" where 2A says "shall not be infringed", not by Congress, not by the Executive, not by the courts - just PERIOD).

To ignore this is not just ignoring writings and conversations of the founders, it is ignoring the balance of human history that informed those writings and brought them to that conclusion.

One does not need to cast off the concept of government (I certainly don't) to understand how it might fail and how to limit its power to prevent this failure, or at least reduce its occurrence.

 

[flintoid]

I suspect there are plenty of people who do think this. It was so "unpleasant" to wrong-think this for many decades following GCA68 that the NRA went down their "hunter's rights" rat-hole.

spcantwell might just fall under the thought train where "automatic firearms are more evil than semi-auto firearms" too. He may not necessarily think that it's a hunter's right, but rather, a bolt action rifle or breach loading shotgun is "more than enough" to keep the government in check. Or the idea of those two firearms are enough to do the job, etc. I could be wrong.

Either way, he's accepted compromise on his natural rights, which is sort of like the first step of a recovering alcoholic- that's he's accepted it's loss.

As I said, I understand, to a degree, why people fall for the "government as a force of good" nonsense and all of its trappings. Taking responsibility for yourself can be scary, but the payoff is well worth it. You can't enjoy the false sense of comfort of buying into a paternal government concept if you understand that it could, at some point, become your oppressor.

What I find more surprising is that if the prior 2000 years hadn't already proved this to you, as it did to the founders, then the most recent 100 years provided even more profound examples of why our Constitution is structured the way that it is.

This is the kicker right here. This is why people always look at the government as "good." Because it's convenient. And it does things that they want done. Whether it is in violation of other people's rights or not, it all is softened when the net result, or at least the "presented and displayed" result (media spin is a wonderful tool) is appeasing to the end voter, or user.

Once you become a critic of your own government, by pulling the warm, snuggly blindfold from your face, you become a more relevant voter.


spcantwell, - people posting things that can be taken as negative against the government doesn't make them anarchists. It makes them critical thinkers. And I think you are mixing the two up here within your personal attacks. I'm sure cekim follows all the laws presented to him by the government. And that he does his part in the political process. Disagreeing is not disobedience. He's presenting evidence of critical thought. And you seem to get agitated by that? And don't respond by giving me that BS that this rhetoric is "bad for all gun owners." That's a two way street that you are driving on the wrong side of.

The founders understood that a person had a fundamental right to self defense. They understood a person might be threatened by crime and that was largely covered by English Common Law at the time and your right to self defense. They understood that you might be threatened by an invading force, whether Native Americans, or another nation and a militia might be needed to be mustered to defend against this.

They also understood that you might be threatened by your own government if it becomes tyrannical.

2A's broad prohibition on infringement (even greater than 1A which says "Congress shall make no law" where 2A says "shall not be infringed", not by Congress, not by the Executive, not by the courts - just PERIOD).

To ignore this is not just ignoring writings and conversations of the founders, it is ignoring the balance of human history that informed those writings and brought them to that conclusion.

One does not need to cast off the concept of government (I certainly don't) to understand how it might fail and how to limit its power to prevent this failure, or at least reduce its occurrence.

it's why it was written. A check to help keep the balance.

 

[MichaelJR]

Sorry for chiming in so late guys, bad form.

I'm absolutely pro gun person,

but just for my curriosity, why would you need an assault rifle ?

That should fix it.

 

[spcantwell]

What the hell are you talking about? I pay my taxes, I engage with people and government to change things for the better. I am not out there calling go-time, I am in the state-house trying to get our laws changed. I am working with people to help get good people on the ballot.

You just can't handle the unpleasant reality of history and so you need to get angry at me?

I am sure that when you are in the state house and telling them that you need guns to defend against them and when you mention watering the tree of liberty they dont just call for security. You seem to be the one getting angry on here just because I feel that what the 2nd actualy says is more important that how 1 or 2 of the people who had a hand in writing it felt at the time.
Again, the FACT is that the 2nd makes no mention of what the milita would be used for, only one was needed and that people had the right to bare arms to support said milita

 

[spcantwell]

I see your point and I think I understand how you've come to your conclusion. Have you found anything else that shows the intent of the Continental Congress?

Do you think that the Constitution should be read as the founders intended, or do you think it should be interpreted with consideration given to modern innovations and revised to meet contemporary times?

Like I said, I dont really care about 'intent'. Unless you can talk to the people who actualy wrote it you can NEVER know what there intent was. there will always be people on both sides who can find something that will suport there claims. All that leaves us is the letter of the law.

The constitution is not (and never has been) a stand alone document. It was the start of the US but not the sum total of our laws. I would like current laws to be reset back to constitonal levels but that will never happen. Haveing people run arround saying that they want guns to fight against the goverment isnt going to help fix the thousands of stupid gun laws either. All the comments about 'watering the tree of liberty' just make anti's think we are all crazy and make them want to enact NEW useless and more restrictive laws.

Just stop feeding the fires and maybe we can start putting some of them out.

 

[jasons]

I am sure that when you are in the state house and telling them that you need guns to defend against them and when you mention watering the tree of liberty they dont just call for security. You seem to be the one getting angry on here just because I feel that what the 2nd actualy says is more important that how 1 or 2 of the people who had a hand in writing it felt at the time.
Again, the FACT is that the 2nd makes no mention of what the milita would be used for, only one was needed and that people had the right to bare arms to support said milita

I honestly have no idea what your argument is. You seem to have a ****ed up definition of "militia," but I just don't care any more. I'm going to go load some more ammo for when the helicopters come.

 

[spcantwell]

@spcantwell could you enlighten me as to why the founding fathers thought it necessary to put the 2nd in the BOR you seem to know but as of yet I have failed to glean why it is you feel the founding fathers wanted that particular piece in there.

I already answered this. It was so that citizens could become the milita in times of emergancy. They knew that if no one was allowed to have any guns then it would take to long to train up a milita. Same reason why people where required to have longbows in england way back when (i wont even try to remember which king that was). The milita was called up dozens of times for all sorts of emergncies, everything from wars with england, indian raids, and even fires. It was never called up to fight what they viewed as there legal goverment.

 

[jasons]

The milita was called up dozens of times for all sorts of emergncies, everything from wars with england, indian raids, and even fires. It was never called up to fight what they viewed as there legal goverment.

England (the crown) was the legal government before July of 1776. Lexington was in April of '75. Or am I mistaken?

 

[Scarecrow]

Like I said, I dont really care about 'intent'. Unless you can talk to the people who actualy wrote it you can NEVER know what there intent was. there will always be people on both sides who can find something that will suport there claims. All that leaves us is the letter of the law.

I don't think so... "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." That says pretty explicitly that my right to own any firearm I want to own cannot be infringed upon in any way, shape, or form. Every law that prevents me from owning the firearm I choose to possess, is unconstitutional. Pretty much a black and white discussion, and an anti that tries to pull the "you are not a militia" crap is going to have a good look at my military ID. If they have any other ideas on interpreting a statement that needs no interpretation, I'll see how far I can interpret that whole "imminent threat right of self-defense", as you are actively trying to remove my right of self-defense, which I find to be a hostile act against my person.

Is that a "crazy, gun-toting" whatever mindset? No, it is me exercising the same argument style that is being used against me. The difference is, when it's all said and done, they will be off my property, and I'll still be able to own my guns.

 

[cekim]

The milita was called up dozens of times for all sorts of emergncies, everything from wars with england, indian raids, and even fires.

I wasn't gonna feed the troll, but...

So, what you are saying is that the militia was called up for any number of times for various things, so writing 2A to be specific about the threat would be difficult to impossible. I see... It is all becoming clear now - almost as if they wrote it broadly to cover so many things that could cause one to exercise their right of self defense???

It was never called up to fight what they viewed as there legal goverment.

Actually, it was in fact called up specifically to do just that in Concord, Lexington and Bedford. If you tour the area you can even see where the minutemen lined up. We have parades and celebrations of this remarkable act of courage and expression of freedom from tyranny of even your own government.

Perhaps those celebrations in April are offensive and dangerous to the image of gun owners?

No one at the time disputed that they were subjects of the crown. John Adams defended British soldiers from charges of murder in a British Court after the Boston Massacre.

 

[Scarecrow]

I wasn't gonna feed the troll, but...

So, what you are saying is that the militia was called up for any number of times for various things, so writing 2A to be specific about the threat would be difficult to impossible. I see...


Actually, it was in fact called up specifically to do just that in Concord, Lexington and Bedford. If you tour the area you can even see where the minutemen lined up. We have parades and celebrations of this remarkable act of courage and expression of freedom from tyranny of even your own government.

Perhaps those celebrations in April are offensive and dangerous to the image of gun owners?

I walked the Freedom Trail with my unit a few years back, there was some reenactors walking the trail as well, and they would stop and point out different battle sites and stuff to us...very cool. It's one thing to read about it, entirely different to walk the same paths and see the field from the same place that they looked at it from... well worth the trip, if you ever get the chance.

...and the trail runs right past the ?oldest? Irish pub in America. Stop in and have a Smithwick's, one of the best pub crawls I've ever been on. Goes right past a few other ancient bars, I believe one of them was the one Paul Revere rode out of something like that, can't remember as I was fairly lit by that point.

 

[cekim]

I walked the Freedom Trail with my unit a few years back, there was some reenactors walking the trail as well, and they would stop and point out different battle sites and stuff to us...very cool. It's one thing to read about it, entirely different to walk the same paths and see the field from the same place that they looked at it from... well worth the trip, if you ever get the chance.

...and the trail runs right past the ?oldest? Irish pub in America. Stop in and have a Smithwick's, one of the best pub crawls I've ever been on. Goes right past a few other ancient bars, I believe one of them was the one Paul Revere rode out of something like that, can't remember as I was fairly lit by that point.

It is fascinating to walk among all that history. When people ask why put up with all the nonsense this state throws at gun owners, I am always reminded about the good things and good people in my town despite a state broken by corruption and progressivism. It is worth saving.

 

[spcantwell]

spcantwell might just fall under the thought train where "automatic firearms are more evil than semi-auto firearms" too. He may not necessarily think that it's a hunter's right, but rather, a bolt action rifle or breach loading shotgun is "more than enough" to keep the government in check. Or the idea of those two firearms are enough to do the job, etc. I could be wrong.

Either way, he's accepted compromise on his natural rights, which is sort of like the first step of a recovering alcoholic- that's he's accepted it's loss.



This is the kicker right here. This is why people always look at the government as "good." Because it's convenient. And it does things that they want done. Whether it is in violation of other people's rights or not, it all is softened when the net result, or at least the "presented and displayed" result (media spin is a wonderful tool) is appeasing to the end voter, or user.

Once you become a critic of your own government, by pulling the warm, snuggly blindfold from your face, you become a more relevant voter.


spcantwell, - people posting things that can be taken as negative against the government doesn't make them anarchists. It makes them critical thinkers. And I think you are mixing the two up here within your personal attacks. I'm sure cekim follows all the laws presented to him by the government. And that he does his part in the political process. Disagreeing is not disobedience. He's presenting evidence of critical thought. And you seem to get agitated by that? And don't respond by giving me that BS that this rhetoric is "bad for all gun owners." That's a two way street that you are driving on the wrong side of

it's why it was written. A check to help keep the balance.

It looks like you arnt even bothering to read my posts. I have said clearly a number of times that I fully support the right to have military grade weapons (aka full automatic). A gun isnt anymore or less dangerous to anyone if its a single shot .22 or a 40mm AGL. Its who is fireing it that is dangerous. I just dont feel that the primary purpose of the 2nd has anything to do with defence against the goverment. There where plenty of other threats to a new republic at the time.

At NO point in any of my posts did I ever suggest giving up ANY rights or responsiblitys. I only have been pointing out that when an anti (who simply has no frame of refernce to the topics) hears people talking about needing guns to fight against the goverment they look negatively on all of us.

I dont care if you want to speak negatively agaist the goverment. In general I think they are incompetant lazy bums who cant, or dont want to, do real work. To many people talk/think/act like the goverment workers are all inherently evil and supreamly competent. Most people WANT to be good (they just may differ on what they think good is) and the gov is set up as one of the most inefficient systems out there with each person no careing about more then there exact job. I just dont think it helps any 2nd supporters to run arround talking about needing guns to fight the goverment. Also, dont forget that the 'goverment' is mostly normaly every day people just like you who go to work and then go home to there kids.

What about YOUR personal attacks against me? You havent even bothered to read what I posted or try to understand what I am trying to say. Its funny that you claim to be a 'critical thinker' when you cant even read what is posted. If you want to keep running arround trying to scare anti's into agreeing with you, good luck. I will talk WITH them instead of yell AT them and to change there minds.

 

[jdb723]

I'm absolutely pro gun person,

but just for my curriosity, why would you need an assault rifle ?

Ifyou're truly a "pro gunperson", you shuld know that the term "assault weapons" was created by antis. What is the difference between an AR15 and a Ruger Mini-14? They both accept high-capacity magazines and can have accessories mounted to them, but nobody calls the Mini-14 an assault weapon. Are you better prepared to "assault"anything with an AR15 than you are with a shotgun? The fact of the matter is that anti-gunners think AR's, AK's and the like are more dangerous than other weapons because they look scary. I can personally tell you that a 30-30 lever action carbine is just as deadly. Why does anybody need any gun? Because the Bill of Rights says we have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[cekim]

It looks like you arnt even bothering to read my posts. I have said clearly a number of times that I fully support the right to have military grade weapons (aka full automatic). A gun isnt anymore or less dangerous to anyone if its a single shot .22 or a 40mm AGL. Its who is fireing it that is dangerous. I just dont feel that the primary purpose of the 2nd has anything to do with defence against the goverment. There where plenty of other threats to a new republic at the time.

But if you can't accept that one of those many threats could be the new republic itself then you are missing the most important lesson of this history (perhaps one of the most important in human history). The very core of what drove the design of our government, its checks and balances and expression of the supremacy of individual rights.

You are also fabricating a history that did not happen with the regard to the minutemen.

 

[spcantwell]

England (the crown) was the legal government before July of 1776. Lexington was in April of '75. Or am I mistaken?

Not if you ask the people on the greens that day. after all who would start shooting at there RIGHTFULL goverment? its only after a person decides that someone has no legal power over you (hence is not your goverment anymore) that they are going to start fighting against it. Or do you think that where shooting at the british troops but reconised the king as being there rightfull leader?

I have states my 'argument' a dozen times now. If you still cant figure it out then there is no help for you. Maybe you should actualy read some posts before responding to one or two lines out of it.

 

[cekim]

I have states my 'argument' a dozen times now. If you still cant figure it out then there is no help for you. Maybe you should actualy read some posts before responding to one or two lines out of it.

and you have failed to support your specious argument with any factual evidence despite our repeated reference to resources that invalidate that argument.

Let me ask you this: The founders understood that "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" -Ben Franklin

What crime would they have been convicted and sentenced to death for committing?

 

[spcantwell]

I don't think so... "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." That says pretty explicitly that my right to own any firearm I want to own cannot be infringed upon in any way, shape, or form. Every law that prevents me from owning the firearm I choose to possess, is unconstitutional. Pretty much a black and white discussion, and an anti that tries to pull the "you are not a militia" crap is going to have a good look at my military ID. If they have any other ideas on interpreting a statement that needs no interpretation, I'll see how far I can interpret that whole "imminent threat right of self-defense", as you are actively trying to remove my right of self-defense, which I find to be a hostile act against my person.

Is that a "crazy, gun-toting" whatever mindset? No, it is me exercising the same argument style that is being used against me. The difference is, when it's all said and done, they will be off my property, and I'll still be able to own my guns.

guess what, If you bothered to READ what I posted you will see that I dont disgree with your interp of the 2nd. Not at all. (now if you want to talk about how laws writen since then stand up to the BOR thats a differnt story entirely).

What I DO have issue with is people running around talking about needing guns to fight off the goverment. At best its one of those things like online ammo sales, do it just dont TALK about it, the only thing it does is scare the anti's for no reason. I also have an issue with people claiming that fighting the goverment is what the 2nd is about. IT IS NOT. How can you fight a goverment that telling you its ok to fight against it? Its about being able to fight as a milita against ANY threat.

 

[Metalhead]

It looks like you arnt even bothering to read my posts. I have said clearly a number of times that I fully support the right to have military grade weapons (aka full automatic). A gun isnt anymore or less dangerous to anyone if its a single shot .22 or a 40mm AGL. Its who is fireing it that is dangerous. I just dont feel that the primary purpose of the 2nd has anything to do with defence against the goverment. There where plenty of other threats to a new republic at the time.

At NO point in any of my posts did I ever suggest giving up ANY rights or responsiblitys. I only have been pointing out that when an anti (who simply has no frame of refernce to the topics) hears people talking about needing guns to fight against the goverment they look negatively on all of us.

I dont care if you want to speak negatively agaist the goverment. In general I think they are incompetant lazy bums who cant, or dont want to, do real work. To many people talk/think/act like the goverment workers are all inherently evil and supreamly competent. Most people WANT to be good (they just may differ on what they think good is) and the gov is set up as one of the most inefficient systems out there with each person no careing about more then there exact job. I just dont think it helps any 2nd supporters to run arround talking about needing guns to fight the goverment. Also, dont forget that the 'goverment' is mostly normaly every day people just like you who go to work and then go home to there kids.

What about YOUR personal attacks against me? You havent even bothered to read what I posted or try to understand what I am trying to say. Its funny that you claim to be a 'critical thinker' when you cant even read what is posted. If you want to keep running arround trying to scare anti's into agreeing with you, good luck. I will talk WITH them instead of yell AT them and to change there minds.

Yes appeasement always works out well. Ask Neville Chamberlain. The anti's are not looking for compromise. **** them and anyone trying to appease them.

 

[cekim]

Its about being able to fight as a milita against ANY threat.

So you agree with me? Excellent, welcome to the ranks of the "crazy, gun toting extremists!"

How can you fight a government that telling you its ok to fight against it?

So, when exactly did the British or any of its agencies issue the order to muster against its own troops again? I am still fuzzy on that point.


(hint: to question in prior post - the crime they would be hanged for was "treason")

 

[spcantwell]

and you have failed to support your specious argument with any factual evidence despite our repeated reference to resources that invalidate that argument.

Let me ask you this: The founders understood that "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" -Ben Franklin

What crime would they have been convicted and sentenced to death for committing?

last one for tonight....
they would have been hung (or at least tried then hung) by the british because they didnt agree that they where no longer our rightfull leaders. for someone to be willing to fight someone they cant see that person as being there rightfull leader. Its common sense. It doesnt matter if you are talking about goverments, work, or a family. As long as you view a person as your rightfull leader (aka king, governor, boss, father, etc..) then you do as they say. When they loose that respect in your eyes and you choose to fight against them, then they have lost the right in 'rightfull' in your mind at least.


NONE of this has any bearing on the issue that the 2nd NEVER states anything about who the milita would be used against. just that in order for it to be effective citizens need to keep and bare arms. The second issue that came up is that all the talk about fighting the goverment just turns off anti's and hurts the cause more then anything else.

 

[cekim]

We agree, it was intended to broadly prohibit the government from infringing on the right to defend one's life liberty, family and community from any threat.

You are just stumbling on the bit where the government itself was specifically assumed amongst those threats because you have come up with some strange rationalization that they were able to lawfully form the United States while still under British rule.