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
Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Aug Wed 03, 2016 7:53 am

The gun did it!

Commentary from TPC:
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/ ... 18213.html
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: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Mon 08, 2016 10:45 am

MORE FUN WITH DEFINITIONS... In Massachusetts with Maura Healy's gun ban the phrase semi automatic has now become synonymous with the phrase assault weapon. The trouble with this is any firearm which fires one round with one pull of the trigger is now legally an assault weapon. This, in turn, means most guns including revolvers would suddenly become assault weapons and be illegal to buy. Eventually they will become illegal to own. The general population would effectively be disarmed. We will be left to try to defend ourselves using muzzle loaders and bows and arrows.

Oh it will be real sneaky like. ARs and AKs first - One by one each brand will be named until all of them are gone.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Bridges » Aug Mon 08, 2016 12:24 pm

BS.

Single shot, bolt action that does not accept a clip or magazine, could not possibly be called semi auto.

You are required to work the bolt, and manually reload between shots. Compared to semi-auto, that's glacially slow (which is the point).
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Aug Mon 08, 2016 12:29 pm

Let's see now, can anyone name the common denominator ( or numerator ) of the three examples below which caused them to be so successful??

Mao
Hitler
Stalin

and others...

OK, maura, let's be like them, eh komrade??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Aug Mon 08, 2016 2:05 pm

The modern AR-15 is the musket of the late 1700's
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Mon 08, 2016 2:47 pm

Single shot, bolt action that does not accept a clip or magazine, could not possibly be called semi auto.
I get it. The idea is to slow us down enough to make it seem we can defend ourselves when in fact we don't stand a chance.

It is the action that has always defined the assault weapon. All modern hand guns are one pull one shot - semi auto which is now an assault weapon. Will Maura Healy be willing to give up her hand gun? I know Diane Finstein wasn't. I'm also hearing there are alot of very angry women out there over this ban.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Bridges » Aug Mon 08, 2016 7:26 pm

Vlad_Rap wrote:
Single shot, bolt action that does not accept a clip or magazine, could not possibly be called semi auto.
I get it. The idea is to slow us down enough to make it seem we can defend ourselves when in fact we don't stand a chance.

It is the action that has always defined the assault weapon. All modern hand guns are one pull one shot - semi auto which is now an assault weapon. Will Maura Healy be willing to give up her hand gun? I know Diane Finstein wasn't. I'm also hearing there are alot of very angry women out there over this ban.
Do you think there is a mugger behind every rock?

I have traveled all over the world.
Never owed a gun.
Never needed a gun.
Never been mugged.
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Aug Mon 08, 2016 9:00 pm

Bridges wrote:
....

I have traveled all over the world.
Never owed a gun.
Never needed a gun.
Never been mugged.

How...HOW, did Colonel Bridges McBrag do it???

Here's where he got the story:
https://youtu.be/lfGo03flmaw
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: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Aug Tue 09, 2016 4:44 am

How...HOW, did Colonel Bridges McBrag do it???
Simple, mr. knowitall shoots the bull every time.. This is the bane of boris ( bore us ) and natasha's pogrom on amerika...

He can't help it...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Tue 09, 2016 10:13 am

I have traveled all over the world.
Never owed a gun.
Never needed a gun.
Never been mugged.
You You You !
I wish the poor girl they found murdered in Princeton had been armed.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Aug Tue 09, 2016 12:12 pm

I have thought the same thing if she was armed even with just a .22 she may have been able to protect herself Chances are very low this will happen but it does happen all the time.
Good Dog

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Bridges » Aug Tue 09, 2016 8:47 pm

JIMD wrote:I have thought the same thing if she was armed even with just a .22 she may have been able to protect herself Chances are very low this will happen but it does happen all the time.
Yes - chances are very low that you'll get attacked by a shark too. Or struck by lightning. But it happens.

Chances are INSANELY low that you'll hit the lottery. Yet every week, millions of fools buy lottery tickets. Hmm - they are probably gun owners too - no understanding of basic probability.

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/10/07 ... e-shooter/
FBI report: Americans 38% more likely to be killed by lightning than by ‘active shooter’
Yet one of the most common reasons you idiots cite is that idea that a gun could stop an active shooter situation. Never mind the fact that that same gun is FAR more likely to be involved in an accident or suicide, than stop an active shooter situation.

Image
source: theblaze.com, quoting The Economist

There are ONE hell of a lot of things more likely to kill you in every day life, than firearm discharge.

Yet all you folks obsess about is guns. What are the guns protecting you from?
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Aug Tue 09, 2016 9:19 pm

What are the guns protecting you from?
You and yours... Why else would you wannabe control freaks want them taken away??

Call it insurance...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Aug Tue 09, 2016 10:24 pm

I wonder if Bridges will publicly declare his commitment by posting signs on his properties: "Gun Free Zone."
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?

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Aug Wed 10, 2016 6:49 am

BRIDGES, if she was armed she may have been able to save her own life.

If what you say is true about the odds being so low about getting shot by a shooter then why all the fuss about control.
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Sun 14, 2016 9:34 am

What does Maura Healy knows but doesn't want you to know about AR15s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAjq-4H1Icg
It is not about making people safe. It is about making you dependent, indebted, economic slaves. But first they have do do something about that annoying Constitution. Especially that pesky 2nd amendment. Once they take that one out - the rest will Bill of Rights will fall like dominos.

The gay community in Orlando is being badly used by a very ambitious shill. She will become insulated from the fall of the Bill of Rights. Most of that gay community will not.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Aug Sun 14, 2016 12:03 pm

then why all the fuss about control.
So they can control the good guys,,, Or think they can...

Lotsa new inventions since the Colt 45, but we keep em as a reminder anyway what with new technology elsewhere...
Yes, keep the bahsteds focused on the hand guns which actually serve and mutually protect the good guys...
win-win for us, lose-lose for the losers...

Stick with the class rooms, the churches, families, and the schools, bridgey... you've done terriffic there!!! KUDOS
OK, second serve...

Yes, vlad, their pants were hangin below the knees on Orlando...
See what one democrat can do to a town with enough homophobism and help from isis, etc!!
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Sun 28, 2016 9:20 am

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/arti ... paign=0816
Not a single person was killed in Massachusetts with a rifle in 2014—or 2012 or 2011 or 2010. In fact, over the past five years in Massachusetts, a grand total of two people were killed with rifles of any kind, let alone so-called “assault rifles.”
But for Democrats to make gun control not just a central issue, but also a defining issue—not just in Massachusetts, but nationwide, as presidential nominee Clinton, vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine, and the entire Democrat establishment have done in this election—is something we haven’t seen in this country for 16 years.
The only way to stop them from banning guns—as Healey has done in Massachusetts by decree, and as Clinton has vowed to do nationwide, whether by executive order or confiscations couched as “gun buybacks”—is to hand these Democrats a defeat on Election Day so devastating that they drop their dishonest blame-and-ban-guns campaign for the next 16 years.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Bridges » Aug Sun 28, 2016 12:06 pm

Who gives a damn how many died in Mass from assault rifles?! The fact that it's happened a number of times in other states, ought to clue you in that it could happen anywhere. :roll:

This is one of MANY laws that should be legislated at the Federal level, and not via a slew of state laws (since criminals do not respect state boundaries when shopping. This is plainly obvious when you see how many CRIMINALS bring in boatloads of of ILLEGAL fireworks into this state every 4th of July...and then boatloads of adults...and sadly, kids, get hurt every year).
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Aug Sun 28, 2016 12:14 pm

Yes, we implore the state to think for all of us and with you at the helm... Oh, sure... Buzz off, creep...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Sun 28, 2016 5:57 pm

Who gives a damn how many died in Mass from assault rifles?!
What happened? Have you run out of "rats asses"?
Maura Healey certainly does not care. This whole scam is not about keeping us safe or even keeping lesbians safe. Just as the Orlando gunman went after an easy target to gain attention Maura Healey is also going after another kind of easy target for the same reason.
The fact that it's happened a number of times in other states, ought to clue you in that it could happen anywhere. :roll:
Alot of things "could happen anywhere" So what!! The thing is Maura Healey is Attorney General in Massachusetts, not "other states". By your logic we should now expect her to decree a ban on the sale of ARs all over the country. Your as bat sh** crazy as she is. The fact that rifles, particularly ARs, are used in a tiny minority of murders committed all over the country ought to "clue you in." The fact that Maura Healey would never ever dare try to ban the other semi auto firearm, the handgun, responsible for most of the firearm deaths in the country, should "clue you in". Not that any of you bats still hanging around the Gimme Stuff Party care one wit about what is real or true.

Maura is Hillary's idiot chump.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Aug Sun 28, 2016 7:31 pm

Look at all the laws that they ignore, especially in Chicago!! pffuuueeee It didn't work... again...

Go do some gumshoe @ Venezuela then come back and try it again... Bum Bum Heads
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Aug Mon 29, 2016 7:48 am

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surpr ... le/2600319

More proof liberals have unintended consequences of their stupid actions and statements.

Obama will go down in history as a president who armed Americans to unprecedented levels.
Good Dog

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Aug Tue 30, 2016 8:07 am

Yeah - but with a downside.
With the price of hardware and ammo, that's a lot of money that could have gone to churches, charities and conservative political candidates.
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: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Aug Tue 30, 2016 8:17 am

If the potus and former president of the havad law review and the mayor of chicago cannot enforce current gun laws then why should the good guys have them steer anything but a swan boat??

Trump em, right Brice??

Total social breakdown and failure for everyone to see... It just didn't work, again...
You bahsteds ate my party now eat this!!!
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Aug Tue 30, 2016 9:51 am

They're eating more than just a party.
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?

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Aug Tue 30, 2016 10:26 am

that's a lot of money that could have gone to churches, charities and conservative political candidates

Possible but I think donations have not suffered, what's important is to have the hardware and ammo at the ready when those things will need to be defended.
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Aug Tue 30, 2016 6:21 pm

More proof liberals have unintended consequences of their stupid actions and statements.
Maura Healey's List of guns that are not banned...
http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/g ... apons.html
On this list is the Ruger Mini 14 and the M1A. These rifles are essentially the same as an AR15 in function yet remain legal. This is further proof this ban is NOT about keeping anyone safe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BeeH3iQNB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fk84KLiaa4
As demand for the Ruger Mini 14 go through the roof in Massachusetts Maura Healey should pay more attention to how it looks for a public official to favor one brand semi automatic rifle over another especially when they are so functionally similar.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Aug Wed 31, 2016 8:41 am

Any liberal fool knows the Rugerr is not as deadly or scary because wood is a major component. Being made from wood prevents it from being used in killings, murder, accidental shootings or even mass shootings.
Good Dog

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Aug Wed 31, 2016 8:48 am

Maura: Ban scary-looking people - NOW!
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: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Sun 04, 2016 5:28 pm

Any liberal fool knows the Rugerr is not as deadly or scary because wood is a major component. Being made from wood prevents it from being used in killings, murder, accidental shootings or even mass shootings.
Right. If there are future laws to be legislated involving guns they should deal with an insecure, ambitious, incompetent, public official's ability to disrupt the lives of so many thousands of Massachusetts residents on a whim.
Maura: Ban scary-looking people - NOW!
https://www.facebook.com/MauraHealeyMA/ ... 50/?type=3
https://www.facebook.com/JoanForStateRe ... 65/?type=3
Woah! Wait a minute! It wasn't my fault!, Maura! Or my rifles's!!!

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Tue 06, 2016 8:24 am

After reading this blog you don't get the feeling Ma. police support Healey's ban nearly as strongly as she claims - if at all.
http://www.masscops.com/threads/ag-maur ... 969/page-2
http://www.masscops.com/threads/ag-maur ... 969/page-3
I'm well aware of the AG's bullet points and statements, but they do not constitute law or binding case law. My only point is that there's no statutory basis for the AG's determination that it is legal for dealers to sell AWs to LEOs - she made it up (no surprise there). The actual law is very clear. Yes, the legislature exempted LEOs from the AW possession BS. They did NOT exempt dealers from the transfer prohibition in section 123. Section 123 was unchanged. If you can find something in statute that contradicts the plain language of sec 123, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. You simply cannot infer the legality of one act (transfer) based upon the explicit legality of another (possession) in the face of clear statutory language to the contrary.

Do I think this makes a difference? No, because no dealer, or anyone else is every going to be prosecuted for transferring an AW to a LEO. Am I being pedantic? Yes, but when you deal with the actual law as opposed to someone's unofficial reading of it, you have to be precise.

I'll just add that the AG made a similar error of law in stating that ALL .22 rifles are NOT AWs. The statute clear exempts SOME .22 rifles, there's no basis in law for her assertion that ALL .22 rifles are exempt.

The AG gets an opinion on the in the form of discretionary prosecution, but she does not have binding legal authority to interpret the law. The courts have the final say. The AG can say it's okay for me to smash up my neighbor's car when his anti-theft alarm goes off at 3am every morning. That doesn't make it legal for me to do it.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Tue 13, 2016 5:31 pm

Maura Healey ignores due process then says her motives for her unilateral actions againist guns are irrelevant. This honest article By Sarah Thompson, M.D. may shed some light on just who we're really dealing with here
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagain ... efense.htm
"You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns."

"I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."


How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identity as Victim
If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:
[1] People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."

[2] In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."

[3] Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.

Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it’s true that women, Jews, and African–Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian–Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality.

Why, for example, would a 6’10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim?

I would argue it’s because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims — not because they have actually been victimized, but because they’re members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure.

In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self–defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."
http://jpfo.org/
When your public officials are victims.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Sep Tue 13, 2016 7:49 pm

Rings true.
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: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Thu 15, 2016 4:56 pm

At some level all laws have to make sense. Making sense means they have to serve the needs of the people who elected the officials who created those laws - not just a tiny subgroup of that population. Marsha Healey is going after a certain type of rifle, the AR15. She says it is because they are "copy cat" rifles. They look too much like the M-16 (automatic select fire, assault weapon). AR 15s are semi automatic rifles. In truth it is the semi automatic function or one shot fired for each pull of the trigger, which essentially makes it the rifle it is. That puts the AR closer in common with many other non banned rifles and most of the hand guns owned in this country today. Maura Healey has to ask herself - if the shooter in the Orlando night club were using say a 9mm Glock instead of an AR15 would the death toll have been less? If he had used a hand gun he would have both hands free and could very well have used two hand guns. With a little practice loading, the carnage of the defenseless patrons, in such close proximity, in the night club that night would have been much much worse.

Sound laws also must be consistent and be enforced equally. Maura Healey says she is concerned with keeping the population of Massachusetts safe from the AR15. Yet, in function, there are so many legal rifles and handguns capable of spitting out bullets at the same rate as an AR. Logically, sooner or later, she, or a successor, has to go after those guns as well and in so doing will be undermining an amendment of the Constitution. At the end of her "Enforcement Notice" of July 20, 2016, "The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance." Sound laws must be consistent . A unsound law such as Maura Healey's unilateral interpretation of G.L. c. 140, § 121 (“Section 121”, depends on the whims of one public official which we now have reason to believe is unsound as well.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Sun 18, 2016 6:28 pm

Where it all seems to be going...

from ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
PROHIBITED ASSAULT WEAPONS July 20, 2016
"The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance"
part of article..."Debunking the “No One Wants to Take Your Guns” Myth"
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... your-guns/
The Empire State had an “Assault Weapons Ban” in place since the original was enacted in 1994. As a former resident of that awful place, I had a terrible time dealing with those laws while attempting to exercise my second amendment rights. And while the law was extremely restrictive to the newer generation of gun owners, the older folks weren’t all that bothered. Their existing guns were grandfathered in — indeed, no one was taking them.

The new law, just enacted, removes the grandfather clause. Every single firearm in the state of New York that meets the extremely broad criteria set forth under the new “SAFE Act” is illegal. And since they are illegal, people who were legal owners of those firearms are being forced to sell them, destroy them or move them out of the state. And those new criteria make just about every popular rifle and shotgun designed and sold in the last 70 years illegal in New York State.

The only exception is that those who register their firearms are exempt from the mandatory disarmament, an exception that was only added to appease the Republicans. The original bill apparently had no such provisions. But even then, the guns cannot be sold within the state, transferred, or otherwise disposed except to be destroyed. While before such commonly available guns would be capable of being handed down to the next generation, the plan appears to be to wait for the owners to die, and then confiscating the firearms.
If Marsha Healey's ban is allowed to stand what is to stop her from doing the same as what was done in New York.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Mon 19, 2016 8:18 pm

Gun Ownership Booming Among Women, Minorities, Seniors
by Marshall Lewin - Wednesday, September 7, 2016
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/arti ... paign=0916
In the Democrat-dominated gun-control enclave of Massachusetts, Lynne Roberts of the Second Amendment Sisters said that demand among women for firearm training at a Braintree, Mass., shooting range has skyrocketed. Ten years ago, about five women per month requested training, but over the past year that number has grown to 35 women per month. http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten ... R29PollApr
“Over the last two or three generations, self-defense and firearms
were demonized,” Roberts explained to the Daily Signal. “Women
were told they can’t take care of themselves. That’s changing.” And it’s changing for women of all ages: An ABC News poll in April found that among the issues that millennial women care about most, gun rights were just as important to them as equal pay and abortion. If Hillary Clinton is successful, the Right to Carry—and the right to own any gun for self-protection—could face its sunset hours.
So what’s driving the national call-to-arms among women, minority groups and senior citizens in this country? Maybe they know that if Hillary Clinton is successful at stacking the Supreme Court with justices who share her view that the Second
Amendment doesn’t guarantee an individual right of self-defense, then the right to carry could be as good as dead in this country, and the legality of all sorts of firearms—from semi-automatic rifles to handguns—could be in its sunset hours.
Elitist fascists will do nothing, or as little as plausibly possible to benefit anyone outside their tiny socioeconomic group. The United States as a sovereign nation will never come out from under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Every American, old , young , man women , gay or straight should consider hard what defenselessness means to their future.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Sep Thu 22, 2016 10:06 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lotte.html

It's really bad when people must arm themselves to protect themselves from Obama's peeps. What a hateful bunch
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Sep Fri 23, 2016 12:54 pm

In her initial surprise attack on 2nd amendment rights back in July, Maura Healey said, "The gun industry does not get to decide what is compliant - we do". That was a gross distortion of the roll of the gun industry played in interpreting the law. It was the Massachusetts legislature, back in 1998, who laid the foundation how the law was to be properly interpreted.

from Boston Globe, Sept.23, 2016...
When Massachusetts legislature enacted the assault weapons ban in 1998, they considered banning copycat guns by defining copies of those with "nearly identical bolt and receiver designs." But the legislature rejected that amendment, instead adhering to the definitions in the federal law.
The 1998 Massachuetts legislature knew any gun ban based on a definition of "nearly identical bolt and receiver design" could be interpreted as a back door ban encompassing most semi automatic rifles and handguns in existence in America today. They knew that action would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. To succeed in her ban today Healey must pick and choose certain nice brands of rifle over less fortunate brands of the same capability but appear meaner.

The definitions in that federal law were allowed to lapse in 2004. Rather than second guessing the intent of a 22 year old law and issuing unilateral edicts from her office maybe AG Healey should allow the Massachusetts Legislature to do their job and come up with something better - if that is constitutionally possible. Better yet why open this can of worms in the first place? If it is safety she is truly concerned with, why not do as President of Chief of Police Brooks seemed to be saying as he appeared on stage with Healey back in July, and allow our very strict, existing, gun permit laws do their job.

Motives are important.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Oct Sat 08, 2016 2:52 pm

from ..."FBI: August Was 16th Consecutive Month of Record Background Checks"
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... nd-checks/
Breitbart News previously reported that senior citizens are a driving force behind the surging gun sales. They have been driven to guns by the chaos of society and the threat of terrorism. Women are also a driving force and have been since approximately 2010. Their participation in shooting sports and concealed carry has literally changed the way guns are being marketed to the public. National Shooting Sports Foundation figures show that “42 percent of women who own a firearm have at least three.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"58 Bipartisan Lawmakers Condemn Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban"
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... apons-ban/
As it stands, House Minority Leader Jones believes Healey’s actions betray political calculations that have been in the works for some time.
Jones said:
She should have proposed legislation and said, “here is the problem, we want to solve this problem.” We’ve had attorney generals of her party — and she’s worked in the AG’s office — and this wasn’t an issue. We had eight years of a Democratic governor and this wasn’t an issue, and we just did a major gun bill in 2014 and this issue wasn’t debated. This seems much more politically calculated to take advantage of the moment, if you will, of some of the tragedies that have unfolded nationally or beyond.
So goes due process with a Hillary Clinton presidency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Interesting similarities between this case and Maura Healey's gun ban here in Massachusetts

from ... "Another Resounding Victory for Firearm Rights"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016100 ... arm-rights
Turning to the ban on “assault weapons,” defined as including semiautomatic rifles with any of the prohibited attachments (a pistol grip under the action, a thumbhole or folding or telescoping stock, a flare launcher, a flash suppressor or a forward pistol grip), the court concluded that these weapons were “not dangerous and unusual,” and if anything, the evidence “suggests that the banned attachments actually tend to make rifles easier to control and more accurate—making them safer to use,” with “self-defense safer for everyone.” The government’s own expert testified that “there [was] no law enforcement concern for pistol grips or thumbhole stocks,” and essentially no difference between a short standard stock (which was legal) and a shortened retractable stock (which was not). In the absence of evidence demonstrating a public safety reason for the ban, this, too, was held to be invalid.

Post Reply