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

[Metalhead]

Oh FFS, why do these threads have to end this way?

A lot of folks are "Freedom Challenged".

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Only moonbats from Boston are freaked out by that shit. Out of town guests aren't freaked out--they've actually seen guns in real life. And who knows, some of them may actually have used one once or twice.

Yep. But they haven't seen the baby killing evil post ban Glock Assault Rifles with 150rd drum mags!

 

[cekim]

As a matter of fact they didnt 'over throw' there goverment, they mearly removed themselfs from it.

What???

Does that really make sense to you?

They were indisputably subjects of the crown. When they were done, they had replaced the rule of the crown with their own by force of military victory.

In polite circles we call that "overthrowing your government."

 

[xtry51]

What???

Does that really make sense to you?

They were indisputably subjects of the crown. When they were done, they had replaced the rule of the crown with their own by force of military victory.

In polite circles we call that "overthrowing your government."

Nah. Clearly they were just anarcho-terrorists.

 

[cekim]

Nah. Clearly they were just anarcho-terrorists.

I think it I just more of same programming that has convinced people that government is our savior and in this instance saved us from the British invasion...

 

[fubar]

I am not remotely legally coherent , but even I know a word in a law means today what it meant when they wrote it , not what a word may morph into over time.

You know those Evil psycho Bad Guy Militia Groups in like Michigan and Montana who are crazed gun nuts - the ones who freaked out the Clintons and mainstream Media ?

That's who the Founders meant by " Militia ." Not the ( yet to be invented ) National Guard , or Army reserve , or even the Old West ideal of deputized citizenry. It was free citizens with privately owned weaponry.

And not only did they want to protect our M4's , they expected us to provide our own Armed naval vessels when the .gov needed them. See Powers of Congress section before Bill of Rights ( Letters of Marque ).


" Well Regulated " meant " really proficient " , not chained with a crapload of stupid AWB laws.

Shall not be infringed probably means what it sounds like.

 

[Kevlar]

I dont care what there 'writings' where. I only care about what the 2nd ACTAULY SAYS. After all, do you take into accout the emails of the legislator after a law has been pased to figure out what they 'really' ment?

Actually, this is what the courts do when interpreting the laws.

They look at the context in which the laws were passed by referencing the transcripts of the proceedings to determine "legislative intent".

at where does the 2nd 'limit' the power of the states?

Huh? The entire purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the power of the Government.

I am simply saying that I do not agree with the common interp. on here that it is all about riseing up against the gov.

You are welcome to your "interp.", but I leave you with this...

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana

 

[Bill Katt]

In polite circles we call that "overthrowing your government."

I thought that was just some sort of a little 'spat' or a 'tiff'. The way you describe it makes it sound like some sort of horrific anti-.gov terrorist act...sheesh.

 

[cekim]

Actually, this is what the courts do when interpreting the laws.

They look at the context in which the laws were passed by referencing the transcripts of the proceedings to determine "legislative intent".



Huh? The entire purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the power of the Government.



You are welcome to your "interp.", but I leave you with this...

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana

Also the 14th amendment .

 

[mikem317]

I thought that was just some sort of a little 'spat' or a 'tiff'. The way you describe it makes it sound like some sort of horrific anti-.gov terrorist act...sheesh.

Across the pond, yes, they were described as such. Perhaps not precisely called "terrorists" but the American rebels weren't exactly given a "fair and balanced" label.

 

[mikem317]

You know those Evil psycho Bad Guy Militia Groups in like Michigan and Montana who are crazed gun nuts - the ones who freaked out the Clintons and mainstream Media ?

That's who the Founders meant by " Militia ." Not the ( yet to be invented ) National Guard , or Army reserve , or even the Old West ideal of deputized citizenry. It was free citizens with privately owned weaponry.

Actually, the "militia" is more than just those two groups. It's you and me and everybody else who can muster a defense against an invading army, be it an international cabal of forces (e.g. UN), a coalition of American .gov enemies (e.g. China + N. Korea + Cuba + Russia + Iran) or a democratically elected tyrant of our own making.

 

[Deer Slayer]

Dude this thread has binders full of win

 

[fubar]

Actually, the "militia" is more than just those two groups. It's you and me and everybody else who can muster a defense against an invading army, be it an international cabal of forces (e.g. UN), a coalition of American .gov enemies (e.g. China + N. Korea + Cuba + Russia + Iran) or a democratically elected tyrant of our own making.

I agree. Just having fun with an extreme example of NGO/private militia. ... I believe one of the Founders spelled it out once as organized vs. unorganized militia.

Some of the organized militia joined up as complete units for Gen Washingtons newly formed Continental Army. ... and I believe it happened again for the war between the states - on both sides. Non government affilliated private militias going to war when they felt the need.

 

[cekim]

Actually, the "militia" is more than just those two groups. It's you and me and everybody else who can muster a defense against an invading army, be it an international cabal of forces (e.g. UN), a coalition of American .gov enemies (e.g. China + N. Korea + Cuba + Russia + Iran) or a democratically elected tyrant of our own making.

What is more, the framers described the concept as being EVERY able bodied male 17-45 (and were generally open to volunteers beyond that definition) so as to avoid standing groups of selected individuals which could be used to oppress other groups.

All these mental gymnastics to redefine who is protected by 2A restrictions on government and why are ridiculous. It was a broad prohibition on government inference with this right for a reason. All attempts to apply "reasonableness" or specificity will and have been contorted to infringe on this natural right.

 

[flintoid]

Despite his suckage, I kind of like this one from years ago...

I did too. And 3 years later, mine showed up on my front doorstep. I couldn't believe it! They were right!

 

[Jose]

I did too. And 3 years later, mine showed up on my front doorstep. I couldn't believe it! They were right!

Did you get it out of the back of one of these?

 

[flintoid]

How did you know?

 

[jasons]

Some of the organized militia joined up as complete units for Gen Washingtons newly formed Continental Army.

They did, but not until they had been fighting for a long time already. The Continental Army wasn't formed until the 2nd Continental Congress authorized it under the Articles of Confederation, which weren't ratified until the war had already been raging for years. The idea that the men who were fighting those early battles were "called up by their government" is simply inaccurate - they were regular men who stood together because what they were fighting for was right.

 

[JoeT]

I temped to change this topic to abortion so that we can just get it over with and end the insanity

 

[OfficerObie59]

Actually, this is what the courts do when interpreting the laws.

They look at the context in which the laws were passed by referencing the transcripts of the proceedings to determine "legislative intent".

To a point.

Bear in mind many judges don't bother with legislative history when it comes to interpreting statutes because it can be so easily manipulated. Scalia comes to mind.

The same jurists don't have much of an issue doing the same with the Constitution, the reason being there's not much left if you get the Constitution wrong. At least if you get a statute wrong, Congress can just amend it with better language.

 

[LoginName]

I did too. And 3 years later, mine showed up on my front doorstep. I couldn't believe it! They were right!

3 Years?!?

You could have licensed and built a Kalashnikov assembly line in that time.

Did you get it out of the back of one of these?

Ohhhh... to be a kid again and cherish childhood memories...

 

[flintoid]

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Why do we need assault rifles? Well how about this, none of your business. As long as im not violating anyone elses rights what does it matter what i purchase and for what reason? If i want to buy a quad .50 mount what business is that of anyone?

 

[swodski]

I think we need a ban on oversized and unsightly billboards.

If you're a conservative and place large political signs on your own property (Hanson, MA? and another town in NH. I forget the name) criticizing the president, they do! "It's a distraction to drivers". Can you say hypocrisy?

 

[Nordland173]

its the same sign you guys are thinking of. they just changed it again recently. its on the parking garage right next to fenway.

I will have to take a ride down if they changed it, I enjoy the information

 

[Pete G]

I'm absolutely pro gun person,

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

Why do you need to need something? Don't understand this mentality. You need food, air, and shelter. Anything else you simply want. Shoot an "assault rifle" at the range and you will see they are quite fun.

I'd like to know how many of these 5000+ people the sign says were killed by guns were actually killed by an "assault rifle?"

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Why do you need to need something? Don't understand this mentality. You need food, air, and shelter. Anything else you simply want. Shoot an "assault rifle" at the range and you will see they are quite fun.

I'd like to know how many of these 5000+ people the sign says were killed by guns were actually killed by an "assault rifle?"

0 ok ok i will play it safe 1

 

[jasons]

I'd like to know how many of these 5000+ people the sign says were killed by guns were actually killed by an "assault rifle?"

Probably close to zero. Their numbers have been debunked before. They define "child" as anyone 21 or younger, and they don't separate out these "children" who were shot during the commission of a crime. The vast majority of those included in that number are gang bangers or other criminals, a population that typically prefers handguns to rifles of any sort.

 

[ntomsw]

I believe they also count suicides as well. I think I read that somewhere before. That will drive the number up by itself.

 

[jasons]

I believe they also count suicides as well. I think I read that somewhere before. That will drive the number up by itself.

Yep, they throw everything in. The actual number of kids who are accidentally hurt with a gun is less than the number of kids who accidentally drown in a pool or get hit by cars. That wouldn't make a very good billboard though.

And not for nothing, but when kids do get hurt accidentally it's usually because they find a gun and play with it not knowing how it works. Like they say, it's better to gunproof the kid than to kidproof the gun.