Originally Posted by Doc Jones

If you can't read it, maybe your mother will read it for you?

Your questions don't seem to have a point? Is it that hard to read a bolded statement and not grasp the significance?

Maybe you should ask better questions instead of trying to dodge the obvious?

I don't understand what the bolded part is supposed to mean in the context of this discussion unfortunately. Are you unable or just unwilling to clarify the meaning of your post?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

It doesn't seem to me that it is unconstitutional in nature if you are referring to the US constitution. It certainly doesn't violate the 8th amendment. To me the constitution question would be does the 1 gun per month violate the Massachusetts constitution's right to keep and bear arms. Now if there is a provision in the Massachusetts constitution against type of punishments than that changes the story.

So you don't understand how telling the people that they have to ration out their constitutionally protected rights, restricting them to exercising them only when they have permission to do so, is unconstitutional in nature?

How would you feel if you were told you'd be sent to prison for two and a half years if you called your lawyer more than once in a 30 day period?

If that were the law of the state, then the law-abiding would obey it, and stop their mindless puling..

Originally Posted by Sigma

I don't understand what the bolded part is supposed to mean in the context of this discussion unfortunately.

Even in high school English class you should have learned better sentence structure than that.

[/QUOTE]Are you unable or just unwilling to clarify the meaning of your post?[/QUOTE]

We need to operate on that tumor residing upon your shoulders as quickly as possible. It has a very good chance of causing an untimely death.

Your plea of ignorance is not accepted by this court. The large case, bolded words on a stop sign are intended to draw your attention to it, not to ask the nice policemen "what it is supposed to mean".

Those speed limit signs with bolded text are also intended to be easily seen and draw your attention to them...not for you to queston the trooper once you are stopped for exceeding that bolded number by driving over 110 mph. It is still a felony offense in this State and your question is denied!

Take him away officer.

Originally Posted by NATO 556

So you don't understand how telling the people that they have to ration out their constitutionally protected rights, restricting them to exercising them only when they have permission to do so, is unconstitutional in nature?

No, I don't understand why you think the punishment portion of that law is unconstitutional.

How would you feel if you were told you'd be sent to prison for two and a half years if you called your lawyer more than once in a 30 day period?

I would feel like it is a bad law. Bad laws are not forbidden by the US constitution. I don't subscribe to the "living" constitution as you seem to do.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

No, I don't understand why you think the punishment portion of that law is unconstitutional.

Because the "crime" in this case is the exercising of constitutionally protected rights, but in a manner that is more frequent than the government in question agrees with. They're basically saying that if you do something legal, too often, it somehow morphs into a crime that carries a felony conviction with it.

I would feel like it is a bad law. Bad laws are not forbidden by the US constitution. I don't subscribe to the "living" constitution as you seem to do.

There's no "living constitution" XXXX going on here in this discussion. This argument is about the evils of a government trying to criminalize the free exercise of a constitutional right, held by the people, more than a certain number of times. They're basically saying "Yes you have a right to buy a gun, but that right only applies when we say you can. Anything else is a crime because we say so!"

Originally Posted by NATO 556

Nope, your argument fails again. Nothing in the Heller ruling suggests that gun rationing laws are constitutional in nature. At best Heller was simply saying that the individual rights nature of the Second Amendment doesn't automatically rule all gun control null and void. But then again nobody was really expecting it to.

The details of what is allowable and what isn't haven't been hammered out yet. But I would love to see you try and explain how 30 months in prison, a felony conviction record, and $5,000 in fines for buying two guns in one month is fair, reasonable, tough on crime, and constitutional in nature.

Go ahead and try. We'll wait.

What is conveniently missing from your response? An explanation of why a limit on the number of guns that can be purchased during a certain time period is not a law which imposes "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" per Heller.

If the punishment does not fit the crime it does not necessarily follow that the crime is Constitutionally protected. Executing someone for shoplifting would be unjustifiable. However, that does not mean that there is a Constitutional right to shoplift.

I personally think that the Anti-gun Governor should prove this law would do what he claims it will do before he is allowed to enact it.

Anyone got any proof this would work?

Wisdom from England

Originally Posted by Galileo

What is conveniently missing from your response? An explanation of why a limit on the number of guns that can be purchased during a certain time period is not a law which imposes "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" per Heller.

And you've failed to explain exactly how Heller was a blank check endorsement on schemes such as gun rationing. Explain exactly how the judges ruling that the Second Amendment is truly an individual right, how DC's ban on handgun ownership and their trigger lock requirements being unconstitutional, would in any way suggest that one-gun-a-month laws pass constitutional muster.

Furthermore how to you reconcile the effects of gun rationing, with the fact that such laws make it absolutely impossible to catch gun traffickers in the act?

Give us some straight answers or leave the debate!

If the punishment does not fit the crime it does not necessarily follow that the crime is Constitutionally protected. Executing someone for shoplifting would be unjustifiable. However, that does not mean that there is a Constitutional right to shoplift.

Except for the fact that the "crime" in question is the frequent exercise of a constitutionally protected right. Your comparison of said exercise, to a known and defined crime, is disgusting. Are you trying to suggest that there's somehow a connection between buying a gun and committing a crime?

Originally Posted by Doc Jones

Your plea of ignorance is not accepted by this court.

Unwilling to clarify, then. That necessarily ends our discussion.

Originally Posted by NATO 556

Because the "crime" in this case is the exercising of constitutionally protected rights, but in a manner that is more frequent than the government in question agrees with. They're basically saying that if you do something legal, too often, it somehow morphs into a crime that carries a felony conviction with it.

But you seem to think if the punishment was, say, a fine than it would be ok? Again, how is the punishment unconstitutional...that's what I don't get. The law seems to be more at issue to me.

There's no "living constitution" XXXX going on here in this discussion.

Certainly seems like it to me. The constitution says what it says no matter if they agrees with your point or not. I wish the constitution said a lot of things but sadly it does not.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

But you seem to think if the punishment was, say, a fine than it would be ok? Again, how is the punishment unconstitutional...that's what I don't get. The law seems to be more at issue to me.

Certainly seems like it to me. The constitution says what it says no matter if they agrees with your point or not. I wish the constitution said a lot of things but sadly it does not.

Which part is a struggle for you? the "shall not be infringed" part?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

But you seem to think if the punishment was, say, a fine than it would be ok?

Of course not! Being punished for doing nothing more than exercising your constitutional rights, in a manner as frequently as you choose to, is unacceptable under any and all circumstances!

Anybody foolish enough to believe that constitutional rights should come with expiration dates, and only apply when the government says they can apply, is an enemy of freedom and should be dealt with as such.

Originally Posted by NATO 556

Of course not! Being punished for doing nothing more than exercising your constitutional rights, in a manner as frequently as you choose to, is unacceptable under any and all circumstances!

Anybody foolish enough to believe that constitutional rights should come with expiration dates, and only apply when the government says they can apply, is an enemy of freedom and should be dealt with as such.

I'm just trying to understand why you focused on the punishment instead of the law. Was this just nothing and your real problem is with the law?