You are the "Masshole". There was no intent to grab guns here. I am a firm believer in the second amendment. But states and cities have a right to insist on safe storage. No one was suggesting illegal search and seizure, YET, your belligerent buffoons go about their typical intimidation and threats. THIS is un-American and tyrannical. Why can't you say, that the response was over the top. Why can't you say, the Selectman needed to clarify his statements. No, you go along with the threats.
Anonymous .. You claim to believe in the 2nd amendment, which says "shall not be infringed", then proceeds to opine that infringements are OK. Typical lib/prog tactic. Say you believe in something (when you really don't), then subject it to death by a thousand paper cuts. And, of course, you don't have the cajones to say it under your name. Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
"I am a firm believer in the second amendment. But..."
I love this construction. That "but" is always and everywhere an unmistakeable flag that the writer is all for the 2nd--right up to the point where it means the people actually being able to defend themselves against tyrants.
"...states and cities have a right..."
A "right" is something you can do without asking anyone's permission.
A "power" is the ability to compel compliance.
Group rights only work upwards. For instance, state's rights are things a state government can do without asking the federal government's permission--such as establishing a state militia.
Powers work downwards, against the people (or state or local governments).
So: "States and cities have the [power] to insist on safe storage"
Really? Where, exactly, do the people of Massachusetts delegate this power to the state or cities?
"No one was suggesting illegal search and seizure."
Why, exactly, was this NOT proposing an unconstitutional search (with implied seizure if the "safe storage" standards were not met)?
You want to come into my home and look around. The burden of proof is on you to show, first, that you have the power to do so.
Second, the Fourth Amendment demands that searches be made only "upon probable cause". That means that the government has specific reason to believe that a crime is being committed.
Simply exercising a right cannot be construed as probable cause.
In fact, the real issue here is that state and local governments shouldn't even be officially aware that an otherwise peaceable and lawabiding citizen possesses an arm, the storage of which might need to be inspected.
"THIS is un-American and tyrannical."
Again, tyranny works from the top down. Telling the government to pound sand is supremely American.
"you go along with the threats."
And so we circle around to the beginning. The entire intent of the Second Amendment is exactly to warn ("threaten") government agents that if they exceed the powers we the people have explicitly delegated to them, we will in fact shoot back.
In short, you can shove your "but" up your butt hard and sideways.
You can't fix stupid. This person reminds me why there is this Irish curse - “May those who love us love us. And those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts. And if He doesn't turn their hearts, May he turn their ankles, So we'll know them by their limping.”
ANonymous, Yo claim to be a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but... but... but...
You Sir, are a But-Monkey. You are also a liar. You do not believe in the Second Amendment, for if you did, you wouldn't have said, "But states and cities have a right to insist on safe storage."
States have no Natural Rights at all, only the delegated authority we the people give them. The State, any State, has no authority to tell any citizen he must keep his firearm locked away or inoperable.
6 comments:
You are the "Masshole". There was no intent to grab guns here.
I am a firm believer in the second amendment. But states and cities have a right to insist on safe storage. No one was suggesting illegal search and seizure, YET, your belligerent buffoons go about their typical intimidation and threats. THIS is un-American and tyrannical. Why can't you say, that the response was over the top. Why can't you say, the Selectman needed to clarify his statements.
No, you go along with the threats.
You sir, are no Patriot Not on this one.
Anonymous ..
You claim to believe in the 2nd amendment, which says "shall not be infringed", then proceeds to opine that infringements are OK.
Typical lib/prog tactic. Say you believe in something (when you really don't), then subject it to death by a thousand paper cuts.
And, of course, you don't have the cajones to say it under your name.
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
"I am a firm believer in the second amendment. But..."
I love this construction. That "but" is always and everywhere an unmistakeable flag that the writer is all for the 2nd--right up to the point where it means the people actually being able to defend themselves against tyrants.
"...states and cities have a right..."
A "right" is something you can do without asking anyone's permission.
A "power" is the ability to compel compliance.
Group rights only work upwards. For instance, state's rights are things a state government can do without asking the federal government's permission--such as establishing a state militia.
Powers work downwards, against the people (or state or local governments).
So: "States and cities have the [power] to insist on safe storage"
Really? Where, exactly, do the people of Massachusetts delegate this power to the state or cities?
"No one was suggesting illegal search and seizure."
Why, exactly, was this NOT proposing an unconstitutional search (with implied seizure if the "safe storage" standards were not met)?
You want to come into my home and look around. The burden of proof is on you to show, first, that you have the power to do so.
Second, the Fourth Amendment demands that searches be made only "upon probable cause". That means that the government has specific reason to believe that a crime is being committed.
Simply exercising a right cannot be construed as probable cause.
In fact, the real issue here is that state and local governments shouldn't even be officially aware that an otherwise peaceable and lawabiding citizen possesses an arm, the storage of which might need to be inspected.
"THIS is un-American and tyrannical."
Again, tyranny works from the top down. Telling the government to pound sand is supremely American.
"you go along with the threats."
And so we circle around to the beginning. The entire intent of the Second Amendment is exactly to warn ("threaten") government agents that if they exceed the powers we the people have explicitly delegated to them, we will in fact shoot back.
In short, you can shove your "but" up your butt hard and sideways.
You can't fix stupid. This person reminds me why there is this Irish curse -
“May those who love us love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we'll know them by their limping.”
Greenfield limps when he opens his mouth.
ANonymous, Yo claim to be a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but... but... but...
You Sir, are a But-Monkey. You are also a liar. You do not believe in the Second Amendment, for if you did, you wouldn't have said, "But states and cities have a right to insist on safe storage."
States have no Natural Rights at all, only the delegated authority we the people give them. The State, any State, has no authority to tell any citizen he must keep his firearm locked away or inoperable.
Once again a Statist shows his hand.
Let's see a show of hands over who is sick of hearing serial bullshitters claim their bullshit comments were "taken out of context".
Post a Comment