Massachusetts Ban on Most Self‐​Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment

[txradioguy]

Ok this has gone far enough.


@Jazzhead as the moderator of the 2A category...I'm going to remind you...only once...to get back on the original topic.

Your continuous hijacking of 2A threads to abortion or whatever you want to talk about instead of the OP is walking the very fine line of what TBR considers trolling.

Talk about the OP or move along.

[Jazzhead]

Okay,  so it's shut me up,  I guess.   I understand - talk of hypocrisy makes you uncomfortable. 

I will, as ordered, move along.   

[txradioguy]

Okay,  so it's shut me up,  I guess.   I understand - talk of hypocrisy makes you uncomfortable. 

I will, as ordered, move along.

No you obtuse jackass.  This has nothing to do with hypocrisy...it's about thread jacking and trolling on your part.  No one here is trying to shut you up...it's about staying on topic.  Trust me if it was about shutting you up...that could have been done a long long time ago.

If you want to argue abortion post an article/op in the proper sections and lets get the debate on.

But this is the Second Amendment category...not the Roe v Wade Category.

Stop trying to turn yourself into a victim of something you started/caused.

[Cyber Liberty]

Okay,  so it's shut me up,  I guess.   I understand - talk of hypocrisy makes you uncomfortable. 

I will, as ordered, move along.

@Jazzhead  TRG has no personal issues with being "uncomfortable," he's stating our TBR Policy as I have done so before.  Take your warning from @txradioguy, he's our Moderator.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead  TRG has no personal issues with being "uncomfortable," he's stating our TBR Policy as I have done so before.  Take your warning from @txradioguy, he's our Moderator.

As instructed, I am moving along. 

[PeteS in CA]

No you obtuse jackass.  This has nothing to do with hypocrisy...it's about thread jacking and trolling on your part.  No one here is trying to shut you up...it's about staying on topic.  Trust me if it was about shutting you up...that could have been done a long long time ago.
...
Stop trying to turn yourself into a victim of something you started/caused.

@txradioguy & @Cyber Liberty, Jazz has been a Moderator elsewhere. He understands why threadjacking is uncool.

[LegalAmerican]

Cato Institute By Ilya Shapiro and James Knight 10/28/2019

Massachusetts law currently prohibits ownership of “assault weapons,” the statutory definition of which includes the most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, as well as “copies or duplicates” of any such weapons. As for what that means, your guess is as good as ours. A group of plaintiffs, including two firearm dealers and the Gun Owners’ Action League, challenged the law as an unconstitutional violation of their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, both a federal trial judge and appellate court upheld the ban—though they could not agree on why.

The trial judge followed the lead of the Maryland case of Kolbe v. Hogan (in which Cato filed a brief supporting a petition to the Supreme Court), misconstruing from a shred of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the test for whether a class of weapons could be banned was whether it was “like an M-16.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in which Cato also filed a brief), conjured up a complex interest-balancing test that boiled down to a much simpler question: is it like a handgun? If not, the weapon is not sufficiently “well-suited” to self-defense in the home and can be banned. Both tests contravene the core holding of Heller that all weapons in common civilian use are constitutionally protected.

The plaintiffs are now asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. Cato, joined by several organizations interested in the protection of our civil liberties, has filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’ petition. We discuss how the federal circuit courts have, absent further guidance from the Supreme Court, stumbled around in the dark in their attempts to apply Heller’s “common use” test.

More: https://www.cato.org/blog/massachusetts-ban-most-self-defense-firearms-violates-second-amendment

People don't know, (*not talking about you*) that this is the start of communism in our country?  No one is taught what happens in those kind of countries?  Many deaths. k!lling fields.  Government has all the control. The citizen has NONE.  Little by little.  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy & @Cyber Liberty, Jazz has been a Moderator elsewhere. He understands why threadjacking is uncool.

Oh really?   

[sneakypete]

Liberty is liberty.   I understand your moral objection to abortion but the issue is whether the government has the right to impose that moral view on a woman.   Her liberty to choose when to reproduce is as precious to her as your liberty to defend your home and family with a firearm is to you.   

I do not discount your moral view.  I happen to share it.  Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view,  but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty.

@Jazzhead

I hate it when I have to agree with you.

[verga]

Hijack?  Okay, guilty.

False comparison?  Absolutely not.  I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of "rights for me but not for thee", whether practiced by liberals or conservatives.

Liberty is liberty.  Why should I defend your liberty if you won't defend my daughter's?

Hey here is an idea, don't engage in sex until you are either married or ready to have children. If you need to be a round heels get your tubes tied or date men that can prove they are sterile or have had vasectomies.

[Smokin Joe]

It is only a potential life until such time as it can survive on its own.  Prior to viability,  its potentiality is choate only because of the functioning of the woman's body.   It is her liberty, her servitude, at issue here.   

Your moral view (which I share) affords no basis for depriving a citizen of her liberty.  It's still the woman's call, not the government's (at least until viability is attained). 

 Persuade,  don't coerce.

The choice of whether or not to reproduce has already been made. That Liberty has been exercised.
As an afterthought, the elimination of the life that has been created, is not Liberty but murder, murder which denies the fundamental right to live that now growing child has.
Nowhere else in American jurisprudence is the argument made that one person's "rights" extend to taking the life of another who does not directly threaten their physical well being.

Now the standard for having rights is "viability"?

You couldn't have survived on your own until you were well into the single digits, and even then your odds of survival on your own were extremely small.

Let's say, five years old? Seven? Ten? Twenty one? Thirty Five? Capable of climbing out of grandma's basement and getting a job?

How old is viable by your standards?
A live born baby won't survive on its own. Incapable of locomotion, feeding and watering itself, it is doomed without adequate care.
So, too are toddlers, who while mobile, still lack the ability to feed themselves, provide shelter, and hydration that won't kill them.
The list goes on, and to it we could add anyone who has a physical disability or other condition that renders them incapable of getting and consuming food, providing shelter, and adequate drinking water. Drop them off in the boonies, and half the people in the country aren't "viable". It's a goalpost that can be moved anywhere on the field, and even off it.

Sound like the list used by eugenicists (modeled by the Nazis) to eliminate 'useless eaters' yet?

Don't swing that turd around like a magic wand, we all know it for what it is.

The citizen being deprived of their Liberty is the one who inevitably dies every time a "successful procedure" occurs--the ONLY medical procedure commonly deemed "successful" by the death of a human being, outside of the execution of criminals.

[Jazzhead]

The choice of whether or not to reproduce has already been made. That Liberty has been exercised.
As an afterthought, the elimination of the life that has been created, is not Liberty but murder, murder which denies the fundamental right to live that now growing child has.
Nowhere else in American jurisprudence is the argument made that one person's "rights" extend to taking the life of another who does not directly threaten their physical well being.

Now the standard for having rights is "viability"?

You couldn't have survived on your own until you were well into the single digits, and even then your odds of survival on your own were extremely small.

Let's say, five years old? Seven? Ten? Twenty one? Thirty Five? Capable of climbing out of grandma's basement and getting a job?

How old is viable by your standards?
A live born baby won't survive on its own. Incapable of locomotion, feeding and watering itself, it is doomed without adequate care.
So, too are toddlers, who while mobile, still lack the ability to feed themselves, provide shelter, and hydration that won't kill them.
The list goes on, and to it we could add anyone who has a physical disability or other condition that renders them incapable of getting and consuming food, providing shelter, and adequate drinking water. Drop them off in the boonies, and half the people in the country aren't "viable". It's a goalpost that can be moved anywhere on the field, and even off it.

Sound like the list used by eugenicists (modeled by the Nazis) to eliminate 'useless eaters' yet?

Don't swing that turd around like a magic wand, we all know it for what it is.

The citizen being deprived of their Liberty is the one who inevitably dies every time a "successful procedure" occurs--the ONLY medical procedure commonly deemed "successful" by the death of a human being, outside of the execution of criminals.

Your points deserve a serious and empathic response,  @Smokin Joe,  but I have been instructed by the moderator of this forum not to respond.   My apologies.   

[verga]

Your points deserve a serious and empathic response,  @Smokin Joe,  but I have been instructed by the moderator of this forum not to respond.   My apologies.

Start a different thread, doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[txradioguy]

Your points deserve a serious and empathic response,  @Smokin Joe,  but I have been instructed by the moderator of this forum not to respond.   My apologies.

 

[Smokin Joe]

My apologies, @txradioguy and all for playing into the hijack. I'm equally guilty, regardless of the validity of my points. IIRC, Massachusetts has been hostile to firearms in the hands of civilians, at least in more modern times.

It puzzles me that a State (okay, Commonwealth), which prides itself on being a 'Cradle of Liberty', and where the opening battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to prevent the confiscation of arms, is so hostile to the concept of the citizenry remaining armed today. Unfortunately, that is a measure of how far parts of this country have drifted from founding concepts.

In a way, the other distortion of what is considered "Liberty" is just a symptom of that drift from principle.

Lest we forget, Romney, who also signed off on Romneycare (model for the ACA) signed the Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts as Governor. THat guy has done more damage than most, and continues to be waved about as some sort of "conservative".

[txradioguy]

My apologies, @txradioguy and all for playing into the hijack. I'm equally guilty, regardless of the validity of my points.

No worries.  Not you fault.

IIRC, Massachusetts has been hostile to firearms in the hands of civilians, at least in more modern times.

I'm surprised that the gun manufacturers stay there given the hostility of the Commonwealth towards the 2nd Amendment.

It puzzles me that a State (okay, Commonwealth), which prides itself on being a 'Cradle of Liberty', and where the opening battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to prevent the confiscation of arms, is so hostile to the concept of the citizenry remaining armed today. Unfortunately, that is a measure of how far parts of this country have drifted from founding concepts.

It's really sad to see how far away from their roots they've turned.  Socialism has rotted the entire state...and the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at what Massachusetts has become.

You look at the most Liberal/Progressive states on the East Coast...IIRC almost all of them demanded that the 2nd AMendment be included in the Bill of Rights or they weren't going to vote to ratify the Constitution.

Now those same states are the ones that wipe their shoes on the Second Amendment.

In a way, the other distortion of what is considered "Liberty" is just a symptom of that drift from principle.

I'll never understand how womb to tomb control of ones entire life could ever be considered freedom.

Lest we forget, Romney, who also signed off on Romneycare (model for the ACA) signed the Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts as Governor. THat guy has done more damage than most, and continues to be waved about as some sort of "conservative".

Indeed he has and...God forbid...if another AWB comes before the Senate for a vote I wouldn't put it past him to vote for it.

[Smokin Joe]

Indeed he has and...God forbid...if another AWB comes before the Senate for a vote I wouldn't put it past him to vote for it.

I fully believe, at this point, another AWB can expect about as much compliance as the bump stock ban, despite any records of who bought what.