GM-GUY
NES Member
Gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment. They can be dressed up and paraded as 'reasonable', 'common sense' and needed for safety; but they are infringements none the less. Not infringements on criminals, as they have already shown no interest in following the laws; only the law abiding are impacted. It is now said that the Second Amendment is a 'privilege' - I must be confused, I thought it was in the Bill of Rights. Case law also utilizes a belief that laws apply to today's technology and methods - so the First Amendment does indeed cover Television and Radio as the Fourth Amendment applies to computers and the Second Amendment applies to AR-15s.
When bans are enacted of certain types of guns or accessories, they normally accompany increased and severe penalties for possession of the item. Meanwhile, trafficking of heroin could get you a fraction of the time - if you aren't allowed to plea to lesser charge; this is a far rarer event for a licensed, law-abiding gun owner that crosses a line on a map or possesses a banned item. Remembering that less than 200 people die by gunfire in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts each year and over 1000 die from illicit drug overdoses each year.
The country has had another mass shooting at a school. These are terrible events, but could someone explain how taking away my rights does anything? I didn't know the person, I have never even set foot in the city this happened in; but according to the media we need universal background checks and a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
Universal background checks, while they sound like a great idea - they invariably accompany a registry of who owns what firearm. Ask people in Australia and The United Kingdom how that worked out.
Semi-automatic weapons, the common refrain is you don't need 30 bullets to shoot a deer or to target practice. The Second Amendment wasn't intended for that - the Founders had just gone through a Revolutionary War to throw off the chains of an oppressive government and they wrote of their concern that any government in time could become tyrannical.
Lets say, as in the Commonwealth, that we followed all the laws; we have our proper license and bought firearms through licensed dealers that only carry approved firearms. We then get told in 2016, 18 years after the law was passed, that these firearms are no longer legal and every AG in the country for the past 22 years (as the law was copied from a sunsetted federal law) was wrong to allow the sale of these firearms. Further, we are threatened in a not-so-subtle way that although we obtained and posses illegal firearms we won't be prosecuted 'at this time'.
Remember, the laws only work with the consent of the governed; and that time is over for me. The Commonwealth could pass (or simply conjure) a law that all magazines over 10 rounds must be disposed of, or the time has arrived to be prosecuted for what was a legal firearm. "NO" will be my answer, they could send me a nice formal looking letter that might even included serial numbers and my answer will still be "NO".
If we really want to address these mass shootings, perhaps we should deal with the common factor first - not the that they used AR-15 style rifles as tens of millions are owned across the country. The fact that all these individuals appear to be mentally disturbed and it was a open fact should be addressed. Of course, that isn't the goal of the government - CONTROL is.
When bans are enacted of certain types of guns or accessories, they normally accompany increased and severe penalties for possession of the item. Meanwhile, trafficking of heroin could get you a fraction of the time - if you aren't allowed to plea to lesser charge; this is a far rarer event for a licensed, law-abiding gun owner that crosses a line on a map or possesses a banned item. Remembering that less than 200 people die by gunfire in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts each year and over 1000 die from illicit drug overdoses each year.
The country has had another mass shooting at a school. These are terrible events, but could someone explain how taking away my rights does anything? I didn't know the person, I have never even set foot in the city this happened in; but according to the media we need universal background checks and a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
Universal background checks, while they sound like a great idea - they invariably accompany a registry of who owns what firearm. Ask people in Australia and The United Kingdom how that worked out.
Semi-automatic weapons, the common refrain is you don't need 30 bullets to shoot a deer or to target practice. The Second Amendment wasn't intended for that - the Founders had just gone through a Revolutionary War to throw off the chains of an oppressive government and they wrote of their concern that any government in time could become tyrannical.
Lets say, as in the Commonwealth, that we followed all the laws; we have our proper license and bought firearms through licensed dealers that only carry approved firearms. We then get told in 2016, 18 years after the law was passed, that these firearms are no longer legal and every AG in the country for the past 22 years (as the law was copied from a sunsetted federal law) was wrong to allow the sale of these firearms. Further, we are threatened in a not-so-subtle way that although we obtained and posses illegal firearms we won't be prosecuted 'at this time'.
Remember, the laws only work with the consent of the governed; and that time is over for me. The Commonwealth could pass (or simply conjure) a law that all magazines over 10 rounds must be disposed of, or the time has arrived to be prosecuted for what was a legal firearm. "NO" will be my answer, they could send me a nice formal looking letter that might even included serial numbers and my answer will still be "NO".
If we really want to address these mass shootings, perhaps we should deal with the common factor first - not the that they used AR-15 style rifles as tens of millions are owned across the country. The fact that all these individuals appear to be mentally disturbed and it was a open fact should be addressed. Of course, that isn't the goal of the government - CONTROL is.
Last edited:
