Monday, January 25, 2016

MA: Citizens must Write Essay to Obtain Gun Permit

Is it a right, if you have to write an essay to exercise it?
LOWELL -- A new firearms policy will go into place despite a final plea from gun-rights advocates Tuesday for looser restrictions.

The policy requires anyone seeking a license-to-carry to take a gun-safety course. Anyone applying for an unrestricted gun license must state in writing why they should receive such a license, and to provide additional documentation, such as prior military or law-enforcement service, a prior license-to-carry permit, or signed letters of recommendation.


Angry Armed Old White Man said...

"I should receive a license (which is permission to exercise a Right denied to others not receiving such) to carry a firearm for any and all lawful/peaceful purposes".

A better attitude:
"I don't ask permission from my servants"
- 'Anonymous',, 02222015.

[NOTE: This is not legal nor medical nor financial nor religious advice. This
message does not necessarily represent any political party, candidate, endorsement/non-endorsement of any public question, or any group, business, corporation, organization, or association. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily my own. There is no advocation of violence in any way. This post is protected Free Speech intended for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDs and LEOs: don't bother me.]

Anonymous said...

I take exception to the phrase lawful purpose. Shall not infringe means no laws can be passed. to create the phrase lawful purpose reguiers laws to violate. A guaranteed right can not be infringed upon by any law, regulation, license, tax, permit or limit. Otherwise it is not a right but is a privilege. I do not support any gun rights group that does not support this concept of Shall Not Infringe. the word infringe is all encompassing. You can not stop people from committing suicide. it is not the gun that causes the suicide. Jumping off a tall building or into a fast river or playing in traffic does the same thing. there are just too many ways to kill yourself to blame it on guns. there are many weapons that can be used by an attacker to blame guns for crime or suicide. I know, I have worked every kind of trauma case there is. Pills, tire irons, crow bars, base ball bats, knives, Arrows, broken glass, automobiles, even hydraulic automobile floor lifts, bridges, freeways, gas ovens. explosives. there are hundreds of things if not thousands of things that can be used to commit crime or suicide. Many of the items are already highly regulated or licensed and that does not stop people with the desire to hurt themselves or others. we use electricity, rope, medications, swords, guillotines or guns to execute people. It is ridiculous to blame guns. It takes a really numb mind to blame guns or limit magazine capacity. cant own a 30 round , carry three ten round. when I was in the army we were issued ten 20 round magazines for combat with speed loaders and bandoliers with extra ammo. the morons that come up with ideas about limiting magazine capacity are the cowards that have never been in combat. the very purpose of the second amendment is if we have to use our weapons against the government. Is our government issuing rubber band guns to federal agents? How many Barnies are there in government one gun one bullet? shall not infringe is what the constitution says about the right to keep and bear arms. Why do I need more than 10 rounds in a magazine, because I do not know when I will be attacked by eleven people. Arizona law used to be that if you were attacked by five or more people you could shoot all but one of them and had to fight the last one standing. it left it up to you to determine which one you fought. an empty gun makes a good club. I had that experience shortly after I returned from Vietnam. more than ten punks surrounded my car in a park. My pistols convinced them they had some place else they needed to be.

Anonymous said...


Rights are described in both the positive and negative senses - specifically and intentionally - in the 14th amendment.

Rights = privileges and immunities.

Privileges are things people can do as a matter of right,
while Immunities are what government cannot do to you because you do so.

The crafting and construction of the 14th is no secret. It was direct and intentional - and the RIGHTS of freedmen were in the crosshairs absolutely and undeniably.

I understand that most people MEAN "permissions" when they say "privileges" but if you are going to argue gun rights, please, please, please learn what it is you are talking about.

It seems another piece about privileges and immunities is in order.

Privilege does not mean government allowed permission!