Gun Ban

Issues of a more global nature: National Politics, etc.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com
Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Sun 27, 2016 2:08 pm

This is all going through the courts. Rule of Law, as written by men, wins out.
Wow! You just insist on proving to everyone you are just banging things out on your keyboard , troll like. without much regard to what you are answering to and how you answer it. This whole gun ban thing started when one sunny morning when Mo Healey decided. on her own, to change the meaning of a law that stood gathering precedent for eighteen years with no warning, outside of her province of powers , and with no due process. She was obviously not counting on the "rule of law" but on Hillary winning the presidency. In that case all laws of the nation would have gone into a state of flux.
She's getting ready for a run against Baker. Scoring points with her base. The campaign gets waged on the fringes, morphs into government from the center. You might check what your hero has been up to, for a current example.
This is obvious. With Hillary out of the picture all stops are out. She will lose. While her base is established in Massachusetts. She could not possibly arrange for enough fresh vote to be shipped in on time. Even with all the Hillary money pouring in from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Global Government crowd she faces a still growing Rule of Law opposition that will stop her here in Ma. just as it stopped the Hillary juggernaut nationally.
The beef? People purchasing guns out of fear and media driven paranoia. On the other side, membership and donations to conservation organizations spiked after Trump's win. Why? Fear that Trump really believes global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese .
Huh?
He's spinning back to the center on both.
He's a negotiator, not a concession maker. Remember this discussion from months ago back when you still seemed rational? You don't do you? You don't read others' posts. Too busy bangin' away
Knee jerk reactions, devoid of research and common sense.
Getting back to Marsha Healey - as i pointed out - this whole gambit of lashing out in all directions began when the polls were still telling us Hillary was a shew in. Marsha still has the advantage of Saudi and globalist money but the national train is now back on its proper track. Mo Healey didn't start this fiasco out of research or common sense. She thought she had an opportunity and she jumped all over it. Now she has no recourse.

Keep up the good work.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Mon 28, 2016 7:17 am

Anyone who doesn't agree with the self appointed authority on all things is a troll. Got it.

Trump as negotiator? Try thin skinned liar. HC stupidly agreed to participate in the recount scam, and your boy can't handle it. Off the deep end with his claims, when he'd do a lot better to ignore the Stein noise and focus on surrounding himself with the people who'll be telling him what to do-

Your obsession with the AG is a little off and cringeworthy, but whatever works-

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Mon 28, 2016 7:45 am

Your obsession with the AG is a little off and cringeworthy, but whatever works-
Well , since this is a thread on her gun ban it's hard to talk about it without mention of the wacko, ambitious, AG who launched this gun ban upon us under false premises.
Anyone who doesn't agree with the self appointed authority on all things is a troll. Got it.
Well yeah - these two lines in your post prove my point. This is what trolls do. If they can't argue with you they look for some way to marginalize you. Then they never back it up with a line of reason.

If anything I think I've been easy on MO and these cases she's instigated are going to prove vital in the break down of her Gimme Stuff Party - even if she happens to win either on legal technicality. They don't serve the people. They won't do what she tries to tell us they will do. In the gun ban case she is acting politically and outside the normal duties of her office. She's shooting her party and her chances for election in the foot.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Dec Wed 07, 2016 5:11 pm

For our next Attorney General we should elect someone who would re-interpret and enforce Massachusetts gay marriage laws for no good reason other than to watch his/her political opponents twist in the wind for three years while the case is tied up in court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meanwhile...
Globe Columnist Lies Four Times in One Post To Keep Black Americans Disarmed
Posted at 11:40 am on December 5, 2016 by Bob Owens
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/12/05 ... -disarmed/

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Dec Sun 11, 2016 10:25 am

A federal judge is very concerned about what seems the political motivations behind Maura Healey's law suit against Exxon. Healey is very upset..She calls calls her deposition to Texas, , "an abuse of discretion". Yet Maura is certainly no stranger to justice department officials taking unprecedented actions. The federal judge's depostion order for Healey to go to Texas and explain her motivations behind demanding millions of pages of documents are far easier to reconcile than an attorney general re-writing state gun law all by her lonesome self. Federal Judge Kinkeade has good reason to be concerned and his motives are preferable

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Dec Fri 23, 2016 8:00 am

In anticipation of her run for Governor Attorney General, Marsha Healey, is reportedly holding meetings with local Hillary Clinton $upporter$. If elected Marsha, along with her sidekick Boston Mayor Muddy Wash, will use every possible device to make Massachusetts safe for illegal alien$.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Dec Thu 29, 2016 7:26 am

Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Dec Thu 29, 2016 12:55 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... plemented/

interesting article.
As usual some of the best stuff comes from the comments after the article. Here are a few of my favorites.
Thank you! They ONLY reason that even passed, was because the "wording" was deceptive and led unknowing people to believe there weren't ANY background checks to buy a gun!
Playing with definitions and wording seems to be the only way the MoBats can get anywhere these days. But then there was this.
Do not delude yourself that they are uninformed and ignorant. They are dedicated and implacable enemies of capitalism and the republic we live in. They realize that as long as we have the means to resist, they cannot achieve their goal of destroying our Constitution and rule of law.

Never forget, negotiating with a liberal is incremental surrender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From comments after another article... How the deception is going down here in Massachusetts
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/healey ... faee5.html
Moron Healy stated the Gun Ownwers want to change the law, they can go to the Legislature," she said. "But the law is the law, and it's my job to enforce it." well the legislature already made the law , and she took it upon herself to change the wording and meaning of the LAW AS WRITTEN, then SHE refused to follow the law and release her findings under the FOIA , so she is now doing what she accused glock of doing.... She is a true moron.
Firearm manufacturers are not immune from lawsuits for product liability due to defects. They are immune from frivolous lawsuits relating to crimes committed with their products. The reason for that is simple: nobody sues auto makers when somebody uses their products when they are used in the commission of a crime. Anti-gun people are simply out to destroy the gun industry by smothering them in litigation.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4600
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Dec Thu 29, 2016 4:13 pm

Are we in a de facto state of civil war?
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jan Sun 01, 2017 1:14 pm

Are we in a de facto state of civil war?
Yes, a cold civil war. I can't imagine a hot civil war with one side made up of Hillary supporters. It would be too easy. We could just give them all trophies for participating and send them home happy as idiots.

This is just one more reason we should thank our lucky stars Trump was elected. Can you imagine Hillary as Commander and Chief! Things could have easily been much different. We would have had no chance of stopping all this nonsense litigation and executive action we are now seeing with the backing of the military. As it is too much of Donald's time as a new president will be spent trying to undo what the likes of Healey and Bamo have started.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Mon 02, 2017 9:50 am

If Trump is serious about reducing spending, not that he is, he's not a conservative, not concerned with waste fraud and abuse; when in trouble, declares bankruptcy, etc. he should look here:
Sixty-seven non-military federal agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment.
Of that total amount, ‘Traditional Law Enforcement’ Agencies spent 77 percent ($1.14 billion) while ‘Administrative’ or ‘General’ Agencies spent 23 percent ($335.1 million).
Non-military federal spending on guns and ammunition jumped 104 percent from $55 million (FY2006) to $112 million (FY2011).
Nearly 6 percent ($42 million) of all federal guns and ammunition purchase transactions were wrongly coded. Some purchases were actually for ping-pong balls, gym equipment, bread, copiers, cotton balls, or cable television including a line item from the Coast Guard entered as "Cable Dude".
Administrative agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Small Business Administration (SBA), Smithsonian Institution, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Mint, Department of Education, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and many other agencies purchased guns, ammo, and military-style equipment.
Since 2004, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) purchased 1.7 billion bullets including 453 million hollow-point bullets. As of 1/1/2014, DHS estimated its bullet inventory-reserve at 22-months, or 160 million rounds.
Between 1998 and 2008 (the most recent comprehensive data available) the number of law enforcement officers employed by federal agencies increased nearly 50 percent from 83,000 (1998) to 120,000 (2008). However, Department of Justice officer count increased from 40,000 (2008) to 69,000 (2013) and Department of Homeland Security officer count increased from 55,000 (2008) to 70,000 (2013).
The Internal Revenue Service, with its 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The EPA has spent $715 million on its ‘Criminal Enforcement Division’ from FY2005 to present even as the agency has come under fire for failing to perform its basic functions.
Federal agencies spent $313,958 on paintball equipment, along with $14.7 million on Tasers, $1.6 million on unmanned aircraft, $8.2 million on buckshot, $7.44 million on projectiles, and $4 million on grenades/launchers.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $11.66 million including more than $200,000 on ‘night vision equipment,’ $2.3 million on ‘armor – personal,’ more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million on ammunition. Veterans Affairs has 3,700 law enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers.
12. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote controlled helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes, and more

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4600
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Jan Mon 02, 2017 10:44 am

Mac66 wrote:If Trump is serious about reducing spending, not that he is, he's not a conservative, not concerned with waste fraud and abuse; when in trouble, declares bankruptcy, etc. he should look here:
Sixty-seven non-military federal agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment.
Of that total amount, ‘Traditional Law Enforcement’ Agencies spent 77 percent ($1.14 billion) while ‘Administrative’ or ‘General’ Agencies spent 23 percent ($335.1 million).
Non-military federal spending on guns and ammunition jumped 104 percent from $55 million (FY2006) to $112 million (FY2011).
Nearly 6 percent ($42 million) of all federal guns and ammunition purchase transactions were wrongly coded. Some purchases were actually for ping-pong balls, gym equipment, bread, copiers, cotton balls, or cable television including a line item from the Coast Guard entered as "Cable Dude".
Administrative agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Small Business Administration (SBA), Smithsonian Institution, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Mint, Department of Education, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and many other agencies purchased guns, ammo, and military-style equipment.
Since 2004, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) purchased 1.7 billion bullets including 453 million hollow-point bullets. As of 1/1/2014, DHS estimated its bullet inventory-reserve at 22-months, or 160 million rounds.
Between 1998 and 2008 (the most recent comprehensive data available) the number of law enforcement officers employed by federal agencies increased nearly 50 percent from 83,000 (1998) to 120,000 (2008). However, Department of Justice officer count increased from 40,000 (2008) to 69,000 (2013) and Department of Homeland Security officer count increased from 55,000 (2008) to 70,000 (2013).
The Internal Revenue Service, with its 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The EPA has spent $715 million on its ‘Criminal Enforcement Division’ from FY2005 to present even as the agency has come under fire for failing to perform its basic functions.
Federal agencies spent $313,958 on paintball equipment, along with $14.7 million on Tasers, $1.6 million on unmanned aircraft, $8.2 million on buckshot, $7.44 million on projectiles, and $4 million on grenades/launchers.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $11.66 million including more than $200,000 on ‘night vision equipment,’ $2.3 million on ‘armor – personal,’ more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million on ammunition. Veterans Affairs has 3,700 law enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers.
12. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote controlled helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes, and more

Agreed. Someone has some explainin' to do about these purchases.
Now, with the 'Propaganda' Act signed two weeks ago, the STATE DEPARTMENT, in cooperation with Homeland Security and others can ENFORCE their 'determinations' on what is 'fake news' and, take 'measures' to counteract it!!!
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12117
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Jan Mon 02, 2017 11:35 am

Sixty-seven non-military federal agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment.
Mac,

That was when donkey balls was sure that the good guys were out to get him...

Did it all legal like @ the polls... Now can you imagine all that fire power in the hands of Americans??

Better luck next time... It was just a bait and switch move...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Mon 02, 2017 12:34 pm

Take the pom pom's off long enough to ask the hard questions. Your boy's on the hook now, the real game begins right quick. Put Obama away, go buy his book and burn it, but the other shoes about to drop.

It's called accountability, and Trump and his suck ups own it...

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3068
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by HokieAl » Jan Mon 02, 2017 2:10 pm

Didn't you hear about air force one?

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12117
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Jan Mon 02, 2017 2:41 pm

Maximus,

Ur all mixed up, the Trump is a builder where donkey balls is a destroyer... Plain and simple...
It's called accountability, and Trump and his suck ups own it...
Geez, wunder what the board @ Trump thinks about that, a responsible company... Who eats donkey ball's flux ups??
US taxpayers will suck it up ( again ) but the new guy look responsible...

Tax and spend is ovah!! Rebuild and prosper is the caper now... Shrillary didn't get it either... Common blind spot...

WE lost 4200 of America's finest in freeing Iraq where we lost 3900 in Chicago during last eight years to homicide...
What happened to BLM??

Ye gads, man, come up for air...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Mon 02, 2017 3:23 pm

Iraq?

Talk to GB about that horrible blunder...

Chicago? A city with millions afflicted with a gang cancer of a couple thousand...

You want the fix; what's Donny going to do? Send Gentle Ben to fact find?

Mid terms around the corner, not much time left for tweeting and gloating...

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12117
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Jan Mon 02, 2017 4:00 pm

Talk to GB about that horrible blunder...
as usual>>> :lol: But asshat used the wmd's on his own OK...

Pulling the plug helped?? No TNX, U been backing the losers... That star is setting ( crashing ) in the sky...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jan Tue 03, 2017 7:26 am

Chicago? A city with millions afflicted with a gang cancer of a couple thousand...
No denying that. And the "gang cancer" is very much reassured by the fact Chicago's gun laws have rendered the law abiding civilian population pretty much defenseless against them.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Wed 04, 2017 11:59 am

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boom- ... le/2610848

Of all of Obama's failures this one I put at the top. He and his liberal wonks wanted to make gun ownership as difficult as it can be, even as going so far to ban firearms. So in his last year 27 million more firearms in the hand of U.S. citizens.

What a goofball... it's laughable
Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Wed 04, 2017 12:30 pm

While the election gave us some growth this year, we think the primary driver right now is that people are realizing just how vulnerable they are.
The right has been preaching end of the world nonsense for years. Gun sales are driven by fear. The above quote, from a gun seller, proves it.

If you're convinced that external threats lurk around every corner, you're going to go out and buy a gun. Fear. Or, if you are convinced the gov is going to somehow manage to prevent people, including sportsman and hobbyists, from buying guns, you're going to buy guns you don't need. Fear.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Wed 04, 2017 12:34 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-sho ... d=15285605

so you prefer this women be defenseless
Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Wed 04, 2017 12:39 pm

She can go and buy 100 guns if she wants. She has the right.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Wed 04, 2017 1:21 pm

you're going to buy guns you don't need. Fear.

Your statement does not jive with what you just posted, it's a 180. The mom protecting herself and her kid from a real threat is not conceived, imagined or a remote possibility.


The right has been preaching end of the world nonsense for years, it's odd you mentioned that because the Moonbats have been building personal shelters for a long while.
Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Wed 04, 2017 1:39 pm

building personal shelters
Cask N Flagon is the best.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jan Wed 04, 2017 3:20 pm

Gun sales are driven by fear
So what motivated Mo Healey's gun ban? A concern for public safety?

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Thu 05, 2017 9:55 am

http://www.wcvb.com/article/2-kids-home ... in/8565152

http://www.wcvb.com/article/suspects-in ... n-due-in-c

Mac66 do you think the fear that motivates people to arm themselves is from a real threat or unfounded
Good Dog

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Thu 05, 2017 11:14 am

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c1f7a4d7-0 ... hased.html

News is loaded with these stories today
Good Dog

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Thu 05, 2017 11:49 am

Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Sat 07, 2017 8:35 am

Florida shooter had mental health issues; known to the FBI, known to Alaska police; yet is allowed, per TSA regulations, to carry a gun in checked baggage. Deplanes, retrieves bag, loads gun, kills 5 people.

Santiago had turned up at an FBI office in Anchorage in November of last year behaving erratically and was turned over to local police, who took him to a medical facility for a mental evaluation.

Don't you have to declare to TSA that you are carrying a gun in checked baggage? Does not said declaration trigger any kind of spot check?

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3068
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by HokieAl » Jan Sat 07, 2017 9:55 am

Mac66 wrote: Don't you have to declare to TSA that you are carrying a gun in checked baggage? Does not said declaration trigger any kind of spot check?
Government at its best.

And you guys wanted it running our healthcare system.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Sat 07, 2017 1:36 pm

Why would checking a guy for spots be helpful? Is that a Moonbat strategy, like dumping out your shampoo or goosing an 80 year old?
Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Sat 07, 2017 2:00 pm

Oh right.

Nothing to be done, though the guy went to the FBI spouting crazy talk. No problem letting him on a plane with a gun.

You guys are pathetic. Whine if the gov does something, whine if they don't.

The guaranteed reaction? Whining, moaning, just like the Foxies..

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12117
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Jan Sat 07, 2017 4:15 pm

You are from Shangri-La, yes??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jan Sat 07, 2017 4:57 pm

Nothing to be done, though the guy went to the FBI spouting crazy talk.
Well... where else would he go?

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4600
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Jan Sat 07, 2017 6:05 pm

Vlad_Rap wrote:
Nothing to be done, though the guy went to the FBI spouting crazy talk.
Well... where else would he go?
Oprah.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jan Tue 10, 2017 5:18 pm

MAURA HEALEY IS THE LAW!!
excerpts from article
" Healey faces backlash on gun-control measures"
By Christian M. Wade Statehouse Reporter
Healey, who oversaw more than 250 lawyers in the office's civil rights division before she was elected attorney general, created friction with Gov. Charlie Baker by expanding the assault weapons ban. The Republican governor took office with Healey in 2015.

Baker, who supports the ban, sent a letter to Healey in July requesting that her office clarify its unilateral action on "copy-cat" weapons and what it meant for "responsible gun owners" who purchased the weapons legally.

"Keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who wish to do others harm is a priority we share," Baker wrote. "At the same time, protecting from prosecution responsible gun owners who followed the rules in the past and ensuring there is clarity when it comes to enforcing gun control measures such as the assault weapons ban are essential to fair application of the law."
Yet, despite requests for clarification from the Governor of the Commonwealth, Healey resonds...
The new rules don't need further clarification. She expects to prevail in the legal challenges.

"If the gun lobby wants to change the law, they can go to the Legislature," she said. "But the law is the law, and it's my job to enforce it."
Healey makes the law then declares to the world how it is her "job to enforce it."
from comments - same article...
She is a liar, the 1998 law when it was passed was to be like the federal law at that time. Federal law defined an assault weapon as having certain features such as a flash hider, collapsible stock, etc. There was NO ban on rifles made without those features and they were sold regularly. That was how the 1998 MA law was sold. Healey unilaterally reinterpreted the law to make it what she wanted to. She is a liar and overstepped the bounds of her office.
My god, i can't even correct of the uninformed nonsense she spit out in this article because it would take a week. People with ZERO knowledge on a subject should not be doling out right restrictions for that subject, period!! She clearly has absolutely no clue what she's talking about. Assault rifles (that term is made up by the way, it in NO WAY technically describes any gun accurately) were banned in 1994..yes the "ban" expired but it is still nearly impossible to buy one with the required special licenses and massive fees you have to pay, add to it that 99% of the stores in the country don't carry them..and if you're lucky enough to find one, good luck...the cheapest ive seen them run is about $7000. So yeah, she banned semi-automatic long rifles no more complicated or "dangerous" than a common hunting rifle..good for her.
Moron Healy stated the Gun Ownwers want to change the law, they can go to the Legislature," she said. "But the law is the law, and it's my job to enforce it." well the legislature already made the law , and she took it upon herself to change the wording and meaning of the LAW AS WRITTEN, then SHE refused to follow the law and release her findings under the FOIA , so she is now doing what she accused glock of doing.... She is a true moron.
This gun ban is like watching how ZeroBama Care was pushed through before anyone knew what was happening. Then, at one point last year to prop it up, Zero got the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to actually re-write parts of Zero Care so to allow the court to legally rule in its favor. Something like this is what would have happened with Mo Healey's, and other cohort AG's, assault on the second amendment had Hillary been elected. That is how close we came.

Fun with definitions...expanding the assault weapons ban and how, in Mo Healey's mind, that is not re-writing the law.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9717
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Jan Tue 17, 2017 1:58 pm

http://www.vocativ.com/390175/liberal-p ... guns-food/

I wonder if Liberals will not be so quick to trample on the Second Amendment now.
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 898
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Jan Tue 17, 2017 4:38 pm

Rule of Law Patriots and Bernie type Democrat supporters have more in common than either group is willing to admit at this point. I think this will all become more apparent as it slowly becomes common knowledge just how alien the agenda of the progressive wing of the Democrat party has become. Our Attorney General, attempting to sneak through her unilateral re-write of a 20 year old gun law, is just one local indication. As more real info leaks out from alternative media sources working class people, from both sides of the aisle, are going start wondering why charges of treason are not being brought upon many of these big mouth progressive players.

Things are going to get worse before they get better. Those Bernie supporters are smart to stock up

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4236
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Jan Thu 19, 2017 7:28 am

After 20 first graders and 6 teachers were massacred in their CT classroom, Joe Manchin, a gun owning NRA member, and conservative Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a conservative Republican, proposed the following:

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.

Our bill does three major things: 1) expands the existing background check system to cover commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and internet sales; 2) strengthens the existing instant check system by encouraging states to put all their available records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); 3) establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence to study in-depth all the causes of mass violence in our country.

1. Leveling the playing field for gun sales:
• Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non-
dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check.

o Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• Under current law, if you buy a gun online interstate (from one state to another), the gun must be shipped to a licensed dealer, you must go to that dealer and get a background check before you purchase the gun. However, for intrastate (in the same state) sales, no background check is required and you can sell the gun to the person without ever meeting face-to-face.
o Our bill requires that the current system for interstate sales be expanded to cover intrastate sales as well—so all purchasers buying guns online must undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• As under current law, background checks are performed by licensed dealers, and recordkeeping will not change—dealers will keep the records in bound books, like they do now. The federal government cannot keep records.
• Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
• As under current law, temporary transfers do not require background checks, so, for example, you can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements.
• As under current law, transfers between family, friends, and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your
neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check.
• Our bill also fixes problems in current law that unfairly limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners by:
o Allowing interstate handgun sales from licensed dealers. Outdated current law only allows interstate sales of rifles and shotguns. This will bring more sales into the background check system.
o Allowing active military to buy firearms in their home states and the state in which they are stationed. Current law restricts them to purchasing only from their duty station.
o Allowing dealer-to-dealer sales at gun shows taking place in a state in which they are not a resident. Currently these sales are only permitted for dealers from the same state in which the gun show is being held.
o Protecting sellers from lawsuits if the buyer is cleared through the expanded background checks system and the weapon is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
o Authorizing the use of a state concealed carry permit that has been issued within the last five years in lieu of a background check when
purchasing a firearm from a dealer because background checks are required to receive conceal carry permits.

2. Getting all the names of prohibited purchasers into the background check system
• There are serious problems currently with states not putting records into the NICS system. One tragic example: records on the Virginia Tech shooter that
would have put him on the prohibited purchasers list had not been entered into the system.
• Our bill encourages states to provide all their available records to NICS by eliminating unnecessary responsibilities for states and directing future grant
money towards creating systems to send records to NICS. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.
• Provides additional Second Amendment protections to our veterans.
• Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four
years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would be required to clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.

3. Establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence
• Creates a commission of non-elected experts in their fields who will study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all
aspects of the problem, including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media. This broad approach is absolutely necessary to truly address our culture of violence.

WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO

The bill will not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
The bill will not take away anyone’s guns. The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it explicitly prohibits it.


This bill failed: twice.
The Republican got a similarly cold blast from conservative and gun-rights groups three years ago when Toomey and Senator Manchin teamed up on expanded background checks.

“Pat Toomey betrayed us and our Constitution,” said Kim Stolfer, president of the western Pennsylvania-based Firearms Owners Against Crime, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

But Toomey – a gun owner – was actually in step with Pennsylvanians. The state already had a law covering expanded background checks.
If put to a national referendum, Manchin's bill would have passed overwhelmingly. But the NRA calls anyone, even conservatives, who work for even modest gun management legislation, traitors and worse. And the NRA buys the Congress.

Post Reply