good article here that is very telling of the age we live in and the danger ahead. There is a process to law and Healy went right around that with her directive that has been applauded by gun grabbers. Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves while allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety if you ask me. Just because some nutjob shoots some people, that doesn't mean a gun is bad, the gun did not pull it's own trigger. She is taking the easy way out instead of taking on mental health issues and domestic terrorism so disarm the tax payers instead, BRILLIANT!
I am so fed up with liberals and gun grabbers trying to destroy our country. Vote them out of office and choose someone who will uphold the Constitution which is being dragged thru the mud.


here is the article


Healey tramping on our civil rights

Posted on August 17, 2016
Healey tramping on our civil rights
Sentinel & Enterprise
UPDATED: 08/16/2016 06:34:12 AM EDT


By Art O’Leary

Guest Columnist

Upon returning from an extended trip in the wilderness, I was dismayed to learn that our attorney general, Maura Healey, has once again sought to use the power of her office to infringe upon the basic civil rights of the inhabitants of the commonwealth.

By issuing an overnight edict as interpretation of established law, without any public input or due process, she has demonstrated contempt for the citizenry and a blatant disregard for the fundamentals of constitutional government, where the Legislature makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets them and the executive branch carries them out.

Now, our existing Massachusetts gun laws — love ’em or hate ’em — were arrived at by the people’s representatives in our bicameral Legislature, with substantial input from all stakeholders at hearings around the state, and with compromises from all sides. To issue a unilateral ban on an entire class of lawful firearms is more in line with the behavior of a despot, a KGB commissar, than that of the chief law enforcement officer in the state where the concept of American liberty was born! Indeed, our shores have not seen this level of tyranny since the days of Gov. Hutchinson and the stamp tax.

The attorney general is using her taxpayer-funded office to prohibit sales and ownership of modern sporting rifles that are “Mass.

legal,” i.e., sold and possessed in compliance with the laws of the commonwealth. She is putting personal prejudices ahead of reality. This illegal behavior is supported by Beacon Hill bobbleheads and big-city politicians — those to whom power is more important than freedom and their oath of office.Look at the statistics: These rifles are hardly ever used in crimes, except by evil men in gun-free zones and in a few big cities where politicians are corrupt, crime and drug gangs are rampant, and existing gun laws are not enforced. It is these evil men that need controlling, not lawfully owned inanimate objects.

There are those who say that our Second Amendment freedoms do not apply to target practice. On the contrary, that is exactly what the term “well-regulated” meant back in the days when our Bill of Rights was written — practicing civilian marksmanship. A “well regulated militia” is ordinary citizens doing their target practice.

Now, if you were to visit any sportsmen’s club in the state, you would see that AR-type firearms are very popular. Whether just for fun, or in serious competition, smiling shooters and their friends and family are hitting the bull’s-eye with their AR’s. (AR, by the way stands for “Armalite rifle,” not “assault rifle.”)

The shooting sports are one place where shooters of all ages, genders and abilities can compete as truly equals, and safety is paramount. I myself have often shot in local matches alongside expert marksmen and women shooting near-perfect scores with their match-grade AR’s. Many of these same marksmen, who offer friendly advice and coaching to beginners, were just out at Camp Perry competing in the National Matches.

Whether you own a gun or not, your civil rights have been violated in this illegal action. In usurping the power of legitimate government to enforce her personal ideologies upon the citizenry, by putting politics above the God-given rights of man, our attorney general has shown herself to be unworthy of the office. She should resign in shame!

Art O’Leary is a Scoutmaster, engineer and president of Leominster Sportsmen’s Association.

Source : Sentinnel and Enterprise

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

lie number 1: Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy


truth:There is a process to law and Healy went right around agree

Have as many guns as you want they should be reregistered thats my stance ..

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy ..

So then it's not a lie is it...just a continued truth.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

lie number 1: Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy


truth:There is a process to law and Healy went right around agree

Have as many guns as you want they should be reregistered thats my stance ..


Registration is a different subject but while you brought it up, I have no problem either with following the law as it is understood. I wonder where criminals stand on registration? hmmmm I bet they don't go along with that either. Registration is the first step to confiscation. If lawmakers or Judges remove the second amendment, they should be the ones who come to gun owners to try to take them away.


So my statement is a lie? "Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves while allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety if you ask me. "

or you are just picking pieces of it like spence does?

Healy's directive from July 20th takes away the ability to purchase a rifle that was legal to purchase before July 20th. Tell me more about how that is a lie.

I did not say Healy was the only one plea bargaining down gun charges which have a mandatory sentence. Not a lie. She is the AG, she doesn't prosecute, that is for District Attorneys as you well know. They use the mandatory sentence as a tool so their jobs are easier and less court battles. If thugs had to sit in jail, maybe there would be less incentive to a life of crime and less guns would be in demand on the street. Her directive did not get one gun off the street and she knows it. Political stunt that she has been and will be hammered on this as she constantly changes things and updates her Q&A and page about this. She has even gone so far as to post a tab for support so she can pat herself on the back :yak: Pathetic.
So what I am saying is she should stop violating civil rights and hurting families and business owners by her over-reach and actually enforce the laws that the State has given her like the mandatory time for unlawful possession. Stick them in jail, rehabilitate them. If that doesn't work then figure out something else but do not disarm we the people.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

lie number 1: Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy


truth:There is a process to law and Healy went right around agree

Have as many guns as you want they should be reregistered thats my stance ..

AG office has instantaneous access to the MIRCs list which is a registration list

Why should the government know which guns I have or do not have, as a law abiding gun owner?

They have no idea what guns a criminal has

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/21/hillary-clinton-supporters-want-repeal-2nd-amendment-campus-reform-video-shows?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

AG office has instantaneous access to the MIRCs list which is a registration list

Why should the government know which guns I have or do not have, as a law abiding gun owner?

They have no idea what guns a criminal has

they should know which guns you have or do not have..

So when the criminal uses the gun you had.. but no one knew that it was stolen and not reported ... or sold in a straw purchase they or a legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. sold it these are all ways bad guys get guns

they can ask about it

good article

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

they should know which guns you have or do not have..

So when the criminal uses the gun you had.. but no one knew that it was stolen and not reported ... or sold in a straw purchase they or a legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. sold it these are all ways bad guys get guns

they can ask about it

good article

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
The only solution is to arm everybody with millions of more guns and not keep track of any of them...that's about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only solution is to arm everybody with millions of more guns and not keep track of any of them...that's about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That sounds about right. Crime would drop like a stone. However accidental deaths would go up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=wdmso;1106775]they should know which knife you have or do not have..

So when the criminal uses the knife you had.. but no one knew that it was stolen and not reported ... or sold in a straw purchase they or a legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial knife dealers. sold it these are all ways bad guys get knives

they can ask about it

:)

I guess this state has it's tyrants all the way up to the judicial branch as well as the AG.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/04/federal_judge_upholds_massachu_1.html


I guess it should be taken all the way to the supreme court

sad state of affairs for sure

I guess this state has it's tyrants all the way up to the judicial branch as well as the AG.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/04/federal_judge_upholds_massachu_1.html


I guess it should be taken all the way to the supreme court

sad state of affairs for sure

Your Civil Rights are only guaranteed if the politicians in power can make bank, ahem, votes on it.

again there is no ban you can still own a gun in MA People are crying because they cant have the gun they want big difference nor has there been anyone taking peoples guns the past 20 years its been in place


from the ruling

“In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens. These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.”


Young cited a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”


not sure why Conservatives only respect the law they want to respect I see this alot :btu:

not sure why Conservatives only respect the law they want to respect I see this alot :btu:


:hihi::rotflmao:

You are correct - many conservative (R)s & (D)s - yes there are a few of us left - have no or little respect for a government functionary (elected or not) that interprets power to limit a law-abiding citizen's Constitutional Right.

However, the difference between a conservative (R)s & yes; (D)s, is that the conservative and law abiding citizen will comply with the law, grumpily, and respond at the ballot box.

Progressives, on the other hand, will *RESIST* or create Sanctuaries, and defy the laws. Or they will try to manipulate the language from something OhIDunno like Illegal to OhIDunno Undocumented.

Yeh Wayne - great job picking out a defensible high ground to soapbox from...

Beat me to it, John
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again there is no ban you can still own a gun in MA People are crying because they cant have the gun they want big difference nor has there been anyone taking peoples guns the past 20 years its been in place



Chipping away piece by piece, compromise after compromise, first it's this gun, then it's that gun, then it is copycats, then eventually bb guns.
Believe what you want, I see the truth.
Their goal is a ban period, it may take generations but that is their goal. And if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history. It has nothing to do with crying and everything to do with agenda and taking advantage of everytime there is a shooting.

Legislation by edict is unconstitutional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Nlb_qRoeg

:hihi::rotflmao:

You are correct - many conservative (R)s & (D)s - yes there are a few of us left - have no or little respect for a government functionary (elected or not) that interprets power to limit a law-abiding citizen's Constitutional Right.

However, the difference between a conservative (R)s & yes; (D)s, is that the conservative and law abiding citizen will comply with the law, grumpily, and respond at the ballot box.

Progressives, on the other hand, will *RESIST* or create Sanctuaries, and defy the laws. Or they will try to manipulate the language from something OhIDunno like Illegal to OhIDunno Undocumented.

Yeh Wayne - great job picking out a defensible high ground to soapbox from...

local states cities refusing to do federal law enforcement job with out compensation and the term Sanctuaries city's was created by the Right who love to yell states rights again until they disagree

Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the US without the approval of an immigration officer -- it's a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison.
Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
But that's not a violation of federal criminal law -- it's a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.

but please change the topic ...the law is clear in both cases and in both cases its the responsibility of law makers to fix or change the laws.

you just dont like push back comments.. on soap box threads you agree with..

Chipping away piece by piece, compromise after compromise, first it's this gun, then it's that gun, then it is copycats, then eventually bb guns.
Believe what you want, I see the truth.
Their goal is a ban period, it may take generations but that is their goal. And if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history. It has nothing to do with crying and everything to do with agenda and taking advantage of everytime there is a shooting.

Legislation by edict is unconstitutional.


are there some who wish to ban everything absolutely.. and then there are those like you thinks every one with out a gun wants to ban all guns and in both cases its a100% Per fantasy !!!

once again facts dont matter or support your claim if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history.

your history is made up ! clearly your the one indoctrinated

Gun ownership in the US is at a 40-year low, but gun purchases are at an all-time high

The number of gun background checks is at a 14-year high
The percentage of Americans who are in a gun household hasn't dropped for 15 years and may be at 1970s levels

One of the main reasons for the decline in household firearm ownership is the decrease in the popularity
of hunting

BUT there coming for your guns :deadhorse:

Young cited a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”


not sure why Conservatives only respect the law they want to respect I see this alot :btu:

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.

I would really be excited to be living in the Chicago suburb that is being told it is illegal to possess an ar. But they are not coming for your guns.....a mere $1000 a day fine for refusing to turn them in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The nearby suburb of Highland Park passed a similar ban in 2013, which was contested as unconstitutional by one of the city's residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. Ultimately, however, the ordinance was upheld in court.


you left out or removed from the town's limits. again they are not banning guns they are banning certain weapon

I support a person right to own a gun I do not support the theory the 2a allows you to have any gun you want .

and it seems the supreme court feels the same way

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.


look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The rifles in common use, at the time, were military grade of that time--e.g., muskets.

AR 15s are not military grade rifles.

AR 15s are not military grade rifles.

Lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are there some who wish to ban everything absolutely.. and then there are those like you thinks every one with out a gun wants to ban all guns and in both cases its a100% Per fantasy !!!




Those like me? I don't think so, you have the wrong guy.
I know plenty of people without guns who don't want a ban on guns and they support the Second Amendment. Some of them have their LTC but do not own a gun, YET. I am not sure how you can conclude that I think everyone without a gun wants them banned. You are making things up exaggerating obviously. You also don't take me seriously , so why should I take you seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Nlb_qRoeg


:btu:

I saw that one

I bet there are plenty more people who feel the same way.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.


Plain as day obvious to people with a brain, not just conservatives.


This is exactly what AG Healy has done in this case and if they get away with this, what is next?

local states cities refusing to do federal law enforcement job with out compensation and the term Sanctuaries city's was created by the Right who love to yell states rights again until they disagree

Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the US without the approval of an immigration officer -- it's a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison.
Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
But that's not a violation of federal criminal law -- it's a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.

but please change the topic ...the law is clear in both cases and in both cases its the responsibility of law makers to fix or change the laws.

you just dont like push back comments.. on soap box threads you agree with..

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=1686&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:VII I:section:1325) who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=1278&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:VII I:section:1325) at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-717612480-1201680039&term_occur=71&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:VII I:section:1325), or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-717612480-1201680039&term_occur=72&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:VII I:section:1325), or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.


Yes - it is against the law. Full Stop.

So what is your point?



Lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

95% of "AR" style sport rifles would not stand up to the duty cycles of issues combat rifles, ohh, and then that full auto thing too...

Those like me? I don't think so, you have the wrong guy.
I know plenty of people without guns who don't want a ban on guns and they support the Second Amendment. Some of them have their LTC but do not own a gun, YET. I am not sure how you can conclude that I think everyone without a gun wants them banned. You are making things up exaggerating obviously. You also don't take me seriously , so why should I take you seriously.


Maybe you need to explain who are the" Their " your referring to or are you exaggerating who these "Their" people are?



Their goal is a ban period, it may take generations but that is their goal. And if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history.

95% of "AR" style sport rifles would not stand up to the duty cycles of issues combat rifles, ohh, and then that full auto thing too...
So if the argument is there're necessary to repel a tyrannical government who is armed to the teeth with combat issue rifles what was the point again? :rotflmao:

Not to mention, how often are selective fire weapons used in full auto?

So if the argument is there're necessary to repel a tyrannical government who is armed to the teeth with combat issue rifles what was the point again? :rotflmao:


You're making the point of why the Founders wanted the people to have weapons that would enable them to resist any government which attempted to do away with their natural and unalienable rights, and which would destroy the Constitution which protected those rights.

The ability to resist and overcome a tyrannical government originally created by the people and their representatives has been chipped away at to the point that it seems hilarious to you to even refer to it. But it is still there. It is still, despite your snarky, evil, laughter, still there. Even though the Second Amendment has been severely harmed and limited, it is still there . . . and is still a thorn in the side of those who want to create peace, harmony, equality, and freedom from hunger and want for all of us and for the whole world.
.
And the chipping away has not been just at the Second Amendment, but, necessesarily against the Constitution as a whole, and at the character of the American people by dividing them and bribing them into submission with entitlements and wealth transfers and by changing our demographic makeup by importing a massive influx of dependents from socialist type cultures who reproduce at much higher rates. And by creating a Progressively larger centralized government with a regulatory stranglehold on the economic sector.

The process has been incremental, and it still would be very difficult for the federal government to suddenly proclaim by legislative or judicial fiat that the Constitution was suspended and all power would rest in the elected Central government administered by its appointed regulatory agencies. There are enough people, even in the military, that would resist such a move. The process of change by judicial fiat legislation from the bench, supported by propaganda must still continue until the process is peacefully accomplished.

So it is not so ludicrous to believe, even at this time, that an armed public and a divided military would be able to resist and overcome a tyrannical government.

And Progressives know this, so will continue to finish, by political process, changing us into their ideal of a thoroughly administered system of government run by their idea of experts who know better what is best for the people of this country and of the world.

Voting, and some socialistic notion of "Democracy," might still exist, but the choices will be limited to those who rise up in the political ranks of whatever and whoever are considered the experts. Or the mere formality of voting for those who are basically already in power and between whom there is little difference in regulatory "policy" could legislatively and/or judicially, or by regulation, just be eliminated.

Hey, It might well be the best system for "our time." We evolve. Humans will be different from what they used to be. Or not.

Yeah. There has certainly been chipping away at our personal freedoms and liberties. The government has more control over a woman’s ovaries than any AR-14 gun owner....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah. There has certainly been chipping away at our personal freedoms and liberties. The government has more control over a woman’s ovaries than any AR-14 gun owner....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good point.

So if the argument is there're necessary to repel a tyrannical government who is armed to the teeth with combat issue rifles what was the point again? :rotflmao:

Not to mention, how often are selective fire weapons used in full auto?

The general population, with existing sporting rifles, would be sufficient to hold any theoretical tyrannical takeover by government. Particularly a government that's military has taken an oath to Constitution, not some party.

As for selective fire, they are more used in 3 burst mode or full auto than any AR15 that cannot do anything beyond one pull pf trigger per round. But you already know that (I think).

Yeah. There has certainly been chipping away at our personal freedoms and liberties. The government has more control over a woman’s ovaries than any AR-14 gun owner....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unable to determine is the sarc close tag is intentionally missing, so I'll bite. Gee Eben, How so?

Come on John.. your a smart man. You want a gun? You go in and buy a gun. You want bullets? No problem. A woman wants birth control? Hold on... let’s consult her employer’s religious beliefs first. Was she raped and wants to abort the rapist’s offspring? Let’s see if the government will let her do that. Some states make it very difficult and if some had their way they would outlaw it completely because a baby is a gift from god and a miracle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on John.. your a smart man. You want a gun? You go in and buy a gun. You want bullets? No problem. A woman wants birth control? Hold on... let’s consult her employer’s religious beliefs first. Was she raped and wants to abort the rapist’s offspring? Let’s see if the government will let her do that. Some states make it very difficult and if some had their way they would outlaw it completely because a baby is a gift from god and a miracle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it is easier to buy birth control than it is to buy a gun. You can, as you say, "go in and buy some birth control . . . no problem." But you can't just "go in and buy a gun." Some paperwork has to be done and you have to be qualified, among other obstacles. But if you're talking about insurance paying for birth control . . . well . . . actually, I think it is even an more difficult to get an insurance policy that will pay for your purchase of a gun than it is to get an insurance policy that will pay for your birth control.

your splitting hairs... i can walk into a gun store and buy a shot gun or a long gun no questions asked.. no? I know in RI if i want a hand gun i need to pass a gun safety test. but a shotgun... no problem.

Come on John.. your a smart man. You want a gun? You go in and buy a gun. You want bullets? No problem. A woman wants birth control? Hold on... let’s consult her employer’s religious beliefs first. Was she raped and wants to abort the rapist’s offspring? Let’s see if the government will let her do that. Some states make it very difficult and if some had their way they would outlaw it completely because a baby is a gift from god and a miracle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Ya know Eben, that is not how this works.

your splitting hairs... i can walk into a gun store and buy a shot gun or a long gun no questions asked.. no? I know in RI if i want a hand gun i need to pass a gun safety test. but a shotgun... no problem.

No Eben, if you want to buy a shot gun in RI you go to your LGS, buy it, fill out a bunch of forms, have your personal information floated by your local PD (yes) where they run your info against the national back ground system with the Feds and see if there is anything disqualifying there. Then you get to wait 7 days.

Besides, if you walked into your LGS you might need to lie on the form (ATF Form 4473) about partaking in certain, umm, substances :eyes: .

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

The only way you can go into a LGS and buy a gun and walk out with it that day is if you have a Concealed Carry License, and you have already jumped through more hoops.

your splitting hairs... i can walk into a gun store and buy a shot gun or a long gun no questions asked.. no? I know in RI if i want a hand gun i need to pass a gun safety test. but a shotgun... no problem.

uh, NO

there are questions asked

Maybe you need to explain who are the" Their " your referring to or are you exaggerating who these "Their" people are?



Their goal is a ban period, it may take generations but that is their goal. And if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history.


maybe but I think you are bright enough to understand who they are. I am speaking of the control freaks and we all know who the control freaks are

In Vermont I can walk into a gun shop and after a phone call to ATF and a payment walk out with any legal firearm. Is that bad? More than 1 suicide happened last year the day a gun was bought, you decide.
Our rights come at a cost to society paid by individuals.
I’m concerned that choosing a hard line may preserve the status quo for now but will end with the repeal of the second amendment.
Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m concerned that choosing a hard line may preserve the status quo for now but will end with the repeal of the second amendment.
Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good luck with that - getting 2/3rds of both houses to repeal. Then ratified by the states.

In Vermont I can walk into a gun shop and after a phone call to ATF and a payment walk out with any legal firearm. Is that bad? More than 1 suicide happened last year the day a gun was bought, you decide.

I see your point. You had a suicide there last year. That should be enough reason for the other 300+ million of us to decide to give up our rights. God . . . the horror . . . what if you had two suicides?!! What on earth could we give up to make up for that?

Our rights come at a cost to society paid by individuals.

Now I understand why Progressives don't like us to have rights not approved of by the government. They come at a cost to society paid by individuals. Very logical. The Founders should have thought of that. Karl Marx and Putin are obviously wiser than they were.

I’m concerned that choosing a hard line may preserve the status quo for now but will end with the repeal of the second amendment.
Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why are you concerned? It would obviously be a good thing to get rid of those pesky rights thingies. They come at a cost to society. Imagine how rich society would be if rights, except those "reasonable" ones that government allows us to have, were eliminated. Probly could wipe out that unsustainable debt we've created as a result of us having too many rights.

maybe but I think you are bright enough to understand who they are. I am speaking of the control freaks and we all know who the control freaks are

all i hear from you and other 2a supporters is the same broken record Their coming for our guns .. I ask who and your this is your answer ?


we all know who the control freaks are.. No we dont lets hear some names names maybe an organization or is this more deep-state voodoo

Come on John.. your a smart man. You want a gun? You go in and buy a gun. You want bullets? No problem. A woman wants birth control? Hold on... let’s consult her employer’s religious beliefs first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To get a gun I need to get a license. for that, first I need to take a safety course, then have a background check, and then get the approval of the Police Chief.

A woman can ALWAYS get Birth control, you're confusing her access to it with who gets the bill.

In Vermont I can walk into a gun shop and after a phone call to ATF and a payment walk out with any legal firearm. Is that bad? More than 1 suicide happened last year the day a gun was bought, you decide.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a person wants to kill themselves they are going to do it, regardless of whether they get a gun that day or not. the evil there is not the gun, its depression.

I've personally known 5 people that tried to commit suicide, 4 succeeded, none of them used a gun.

all i hear from you and other 2a supporters is the same broken record Their coming for our guns .. I ask who and your this is your answer ?


we all know who the control freaks are.. No we dont lets hear some names names maybe an organization or is this more deep-state voodoo
Wayne,it's a good thing that you pay attention to politics. Can I ask what you were doing when your educators explained the difference between THEY'RE, THERE and THEIR?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can I ask what you were doing when your educators explained the difference between THEY'RE, THERE and THEIR?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A new low for this forum.

I did not realize an actual list was needed but in case you have not been paying attention, here you are.
1. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
2. Sen. Joe Manchin
3. Sen. Chuck Schumer
4. Sen. Chris Murphy
5. Gov. Andrew Cuomo
6. Sen. #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin
7. Hillary Clinton
8. Obama
9. Bernie Sanders
10. Joe Biden

Let’s not forget Bloomberg, George Soros and so many others





And now for the gun-grabbing celebrity list:



Jessica Alba – Actor Suzy Amis – Actor Louis Anderson – Comedian Richard Dean Anderson – Actor Maya Angelou – Poet David Arquette – Actor Ed Asner – Actor Alec Baldwin – Actor Carol Bayer Sager – Composer

Drew Barrymore – Actor Kevin Bacon – Actor William Baldwin – Actor Candice Bergen – Actor Richard Belzer – Actor Tony Bennett – Singer Beyonce – Singer Jon Bon Jovi – Singer Peter Bogdonovich – Director Albert Brooks – Actor Beau Bridges – Actor Christie Brinkley – Model Dr. Joyce Brothers – Psychologist/Author James Brolin – Actor Mel Brooks – Actor/Director Ellen Burstyn – Actor Steve Buscemi – Actor Kate Capshaw – Actor Kim Cattrall – Actor George Clooney – Actor Jennifer Connelly – Actor Judy Collins – Singer Kevin Costner – Actor Sean Connery – Actor Sheryl Crow – Singer Billy Crystal – Actor

Matt Damon – Actor Ellen Degeneres – Actor Danny DeVito – Actor Michael Douglas – Actor Phil Donahue – Talk Show Host Richard Dreyfus – Actor David Duchovny – Actor Sandy Duncan – Actor Gloria Estefan – Singer Melissa Etheridge – Singer Mia Farrow – Actor Mike Farrell – Actor Carrie Fisher – Actor Sally Field – Actor Doug Flutie – NFL player Fannie Flagg – Actor Jane Fonda – Actor Jodie Foster – Actor Rick Fox – NBA Player Andy Garcia – Actor Art Garfunkel – Singer Geraldo Rivera – TV personality Richard Gere – Actor Kathie Lee Gifford – TV personality Elliott Gould – Actor Louis Gossett, Jr. – Actor Bryant Gumbel – TV Personality Ethan Hawke – Actor Mariette Hartley – Actor Mark Harmon – Actor Anne Heche – Actor Howard Hesseman – Actor

Marilu Henner – Actor Dustin Hoffman – Actor

Diane Keaton – Actor Chaka Khan – Singer Lenny Kravits – Singer Lisa Kudrow – Actor k.d. lang – Singer John Leguizamo – Actor Norman Lear – TV Producer

Spike Lee – Director Hal Linden – Actor Tara Lipinski – Former Olympian Keyshawn Johnson – NFL player Rob Lowe – Actor

Madonna – Singer Penny Marshall – Director John McEnroe – Athlete

Bette Midler – Singer Mary Tyler Moore – Actor Michael Moore – Film Maker Mike Nichols – Director

Rosie O’Donnell – Actor/Talk Show Host Jennifer O’Neill – Actor Julia Ormond – Actor Jane Pauley – TV Personality Sarah Jessica Parker – Actor Mandy Patinkin – Actor

Julia Roberts – Actor Meg Ryan – Actor Susan Sarandon – Actor

Will Ferrell – Actor Jamie Foxx – Actor Jennifer Garner – Actor Selena Gomez – Actor Kate Hudson – Actor

Do you also need the list of organizations?

What is your point of asking me for specifics?
It seems to me the typical leftist tactic of arguing something with the prove me wrong nonsense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI “Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws.” Many of these organizations were listed as “Campaign Partners,” for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton “assault weapons” ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.

AARP AFL-CIO Ambulatory Pediatric Association American Academy of Pediatrics American Civil Liberties Union American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing American Medical Women’s Association American Medical Student Association American Medical Association American Association for the Surgery of Trauma American Trauma Society American Federation of Teachers



American Association of School Administrators American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities American Medical Association American Counseling Association American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Pediatrics American Association for World Health American Ethical Union American Nurses Association American Association of Neurological Surgeons American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences American Firearms Association American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

American Jewish Committee American Trauma Society American Psychological Association American Jewish Congress American Public Health Association Americans for Democratic Action Anti-Defamation League Black Mental Health Alliance B’nai B’rith Central Conference of American Rabbis Children’s Defense Fund Church of the Brethren Coalition for Peace Action Coalition to Stop Gun Violence College Democrats of America Committee for the Study of Handgun Misuse & World Peace Common Cause Congress of National Black Churches, Inc. Congress of Neurological Surgeons Consumer Federation of America Council of the Great City Schools Council of Chief State School Officers Disarm Educational Fund Environmental Action Foundation Episcopal Church-Washington Office Friends Committee on National Legislation General Federation of Women’s Clubs Gray Panthers H.M. Strong Foundation Hadassah Harris Foundation Hechinger Foundation Interfaith Neighbors Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union Int’l Association of Educators for World Peace Jewish Labor Committee Joyce Foundation Lauder Foundation Lawrence Foundation League of Women Voters of the United States* Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Manhattan Project II Mennonite Central Committee-Washington Office National Safe Kids Campaign National Association of Police Organizations National Coalition Against Domestic Violence National Black Nurses’ Association National Association of Chain Drug Stores National Network for Youth National Assembly of National Voluntary Health & Social Welfare Organizations National Association for the Advancement of Colored People National Association of School Psychologists National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers National Education Association National Association of Public Hospitals National Coalition Against Domestic Violence National Association of Secondary School Principals National Association of Social Workers National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions National Association of School Psychologists National Council of La Raza National Center to Rehabilitate Violent Youth National Commission for Economic Conversion & Disarmament National Council of the Chur ches of Christ in the USA National Council of Negro Women National Association of Community Health Centers National People’s Action National Education Association National League of Cities National Council on Family Relations National Council of Jewish Women National Organization for Women National Political Congress of Black Women National Parks and Conservation Association National Peace Foundation National Urban League, Inc. National Parent, Teachers Association National Urban Coalition National SAFE KIDS Campaign National Organization on Disability NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Peace Action People for the American Way Physicians for Social Responsibility Project on Demilitarization and Democracy Society of Critical Care Medicine Southern Christian Leadership Conference The Council of the Great City Schools The Synergetic Society 20/20 Vision U.S. Catholic Conference, Dept. of Social Development Union of American Hebrew Congregations Unitarian Universalist Association United States Catholic Conference United Methodist Church, General Board & Church Society United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society* United States Conference of Mayors War and Peace Foundation Women Strike for Peace Women’s National Democratic Club Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) Women’s Int’l League for Peace and Freedom World Spiritual Assembly, Inc. YWCA of the U.S.A.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

8 lies used by gun grabbers

https://www.libertyblock.com/single-post/2018/03/27/8-Lies-Used-By-Gun-Grabbers

Read this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To get a gun I need to get a license. for that, first I need to take a safety course, then have a background check, and then get the approval of the Police Chief.

A woman can ALWAYS get Birth control, you're confusing her access to it with who gets the bill.

You are talking about a handgun. :moon:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why are you concerned? It would obviously be a good thing to get rid of those pesky rights thingies. They come at a cost to society. Imagine how rich society would be if rights, except those "reasonable" ones that government allows us to have, were eliminated. Probly could wipe out that unsustainable debt we've created as a result of us having too many rights.

I'm concerned because i think that eventually my children will not have the right to have guns.
My other concern is that many of the same people who are concerned about having gun rights think that people do not have the right to:
Burn a flag
Build a house
Do any drug they want
Not pay taxes
Have a boat
Eat horses
Have or eat a dog
Have more than one wife
Distill alcohol

all i hear from you and other 2a supporters is the same broken record Their coming for our guns .. I ask who and your this is your answer ?


we all know who the control freaks are.. No we dont lets hear some names names maybe an organization or is this more deep-state voodoo



Wayne: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html

Pete: http://www.reformer.com/stories/will-vermont-politicians-pay-a-price-for-gun-restrictions,536718

A new low for this forum.


Nahhhh, hold my beer ; )


You are talking about a handgun. :moon:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Eben - in order to purchase a gun in Mass you must already have a gun permit (FID Card) - which means you have gone trough all the forms, background checks, and processes plus have waited one to two months (or more) in order to get the card.

I'm concerned because i think that eventually my children will not have the right to have guns.
My other concern is that many of the same people who are concerned about having gun rights think that people do not have the right to:
Burn a flag
Build a house
Do any drug they want
Not pay taxes
Have a boat
Eat horses
Have or eat a dog
Have more than one wife
Distill alcohol

Interesting list. Missed your point - you want your kids to be able to do whatever drugs they want? Eat your dog?

A new low for this forum.

I know a worse one...:)

Wayne: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html

Pete: http://www.reformer.com/stories/will-vermont-politicians-pay-a-price-for-gun-restrictions,536718
That will be interesting, In Vermont if Republicans are pissed at their candidate it usually means a Democrat gets elected.


Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I'm concerned because i think that eventually my children will not have the right to have guns.
My other concern is that many of the same people who are concerned about having gun rights think that people do not have the right to:
Burn a flag
Build a house
Do any drug they want
Not pay taxes
Have a boat
Eat horses
Have or eat a dog
Have more than one wife
Distill alcohol




Interesting list. Missed your point - you want your kids to be able to do whatever drugs they want? Eat your dog?
No, just that all those things can be done in some other countries.
We are not quite as free as we like to think.

A new low for this forum.

Constructive criticism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, just that all those things can be done in some other countries.
We are not quite as free as we like to think.

free to move...:tm:

8 lies used by gun grabbers

https://www.libertyblock.com/single-post/2018/03/27/8-Lies-Used-By-Gun-Grabbers

Read this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is some grade A conspiracy, paranoid misinformation right here.

I heard stuff like this existed but I didn't think anyone really believed it???

You are talking about a handgun. :moon:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I am talking about any gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Eben - in order to purchase a gun in Mass you must already have a gun permit (FID Card) - which means you have gone trough all the forms, background checks, and processes plus have waited one to two months (or more) in order to get the card.
Perhaps that's a key contributor to MA's ultra low gun death rate.

Perhaps that's a key contributor to MA's ultra low gun death rate.

Perhaps it isn't. Other states with less strict gun laws also have low gun death rates. What was Massachusetts' gun death rate before having its current laws?

Perhaps that's a key contributor to MA's ultra low gun death rate.

Maybe because Massachusetts is ranked #1 in mental health care? Oh that's right, we aren't supposed to connect mental health to the gun control issue.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/issues/ranking-states
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or maybe it's because Mass is top 3rd of the country for unemployment?

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

or maybe it's the rather low Suicide rate in Mass, since that gets lumped into all the stats about gun violence.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

one thing I noticed is that if you bounce the Suicide by state against the Unemployment by state, the States with the highest unemployment seem to be in the states with the highest suicide rates.

so maybe if we looked at the more socio-economic issues instead of an inanimate object, maybe we can figure something out.

so maybe if we looked at the more socio-economic issues instead of an inanimate object, maybe we can figure something out.

but why would we want to do that Kevin? Oh , I know, it takes more effort and politicians are lazy and do things the easy way with little effort because they don't friggin care. We all know gun control is about control, yet some follow along mindlessly like sheep.

The rest of your post is spot on also :btu: but it does not fit the Left's agenda

I'm concerned because i think that eventually my children will not have the right to have guns.
My other concern is that many of the same people who are concerned about having gun rights think that people do not have the right to:
Burn a flag
Build a house
Do any drug they want
Not pay taxes
Have a boat
Eat horses
Have or eat a dog
Have more than one wife
Distill alcohol

Some of those same countries you could be jailed for your post, so there is that ; )

No, just that all those things can be done in some other countries.
We are not quite as free as we like to think.

free to move...:tm:

Free to move from here, not necessarily free to move to most of those countries ; )

(not picking on Pete ; ) )

but why would we want to do that Kevin? Oh , I know, it takes more effort and politicians are lazy and do things the easy way with little effort because they don't friggin care. We all know gun control is about control, yet some follow along mindlessly like sheep.

The rest of your post is spot on also :btu: but it does not fit the Left's agenda

All his points are pretty spot on - in fact if the left looked more closely at some of those other socioeconomic statistics that might be too much in the mirror.

I would be amenable for some of Mass's restrictions except they would not end there. I could be OK with a Red Flag law / GVRO / bump stock ban / safe storage laws / additional certification if it was going to stop there, but it won't. I was willing to concede in certain areas but the past 2 months of convinced me (again) that would be a fools compromise to give in.

This is some grade A conspiracy, paranoid misinformation right here.

I heard stuff like this existed but I didn't think anyone really believed it???

apparently you believe it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6t0QE_gGk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6t0QE_gGk

Are you joining that cult?
Or are you trying to say you can have many wives or concubines here?

To go to a pre-revolutionary war killing of 72 is a stretch to make it part of this narrative, but hey tin foil hats will make you think crazy #^&#^&#^&#^& up to make a point. Common sense rules & reg's, it's as simple as that, I don't want anyone giving up their guns and agree the 2nd amendment is still valid. I do however find the argument that the public should be able to bear arms of any kind because the constitution says so is dated.

John made a point I've brought up repeatedly in this always circular debate, that the odds of a Hitler type leader somehow convincing the entire military to support his believe we should all be disarmed is crazy and I doubt that even if they could be convinced; a civilian militia armed with what those (willing) can bring to the fight don't stand a chance. What percentage owning arms are going to join the fight and again with what the average or even above average sportsman brings to the fight, to believe they can stop a POTUS and his band of bullies from taking all your guns is laughable.

Wayne: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html

yes but they did not ban guns now did they .. they banned assault rifles well with in their right to do so not all guns

Pete: http://www.reformer.com/stories/will-vermont-politicians-pay-a-price-for-gun-restrictions,536718




Nahhhh, hold my beer ; )




No Eben - in order to purchase a gun in Mass you must already have a gun permit (FID Card) - which means you have gone trough all the forms, background checks, and processes plus have waited one to two months (or more) in order to get the card.



Interesting list. Missed your point - you want your kids to be able to do whatever drugs they want? Eat your dog?

but nice try

I did not realize an actual list was needed but in case you have not been paying attention, here you are.
1. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
2. Sen. Joe Manchin
3. Sen. Chuck Schumer
4. Sen. Chris Murphy
5. Gov. Andrew Cuomo
6. Sen. #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin
7. Hillary Clinton
8. Obama
9. Bernie Sanders
10. Joe Biden

Let’s not forget Bloomberg, George Soros and so many others





And now for the gun-grabbing celebrity list:



Jessica Alba – Actor Suzy Amis – Actor Louis Anderson – Comedian Richard Dean Anderson – Actor Maya Angelou – Poet David Arquette – Actor Ed Asner – Actor Alec Baldwin – Actor Carol Bayer Sager – Composer

Drew Barrymore – Actor Kevin Bacon – Actor William Baldwin – Actor Candice Bergen – Actor Richard Belzer – Actor Tony Bennett – Singer Beyonce – Singer Jon Bon Jovi – Singer Peter Bogdonovich – Director Albert Brooks – Actor Beau Bridges – Actor Christie Brinkley – Model Dr. Joyce Brothers – Psychologist/Author James Brolin – Actor Mel Brooks – Actor/Director Ellen Burstyn – Actor Steve Buscemi – Actor Kate Capshaw – Actor Kim Cattrall – Actor George Clooney – Actor Jennifer Connelly – Actor Judy Collins – Singer Kevin Costner – Actor Sean Connery – Actor Sheryl Crow – Singer Billy Crystal – Actor

Matt Damon – Actor Ellen Degeneres – Actor Danny DeVito – Actor Michael Douglas – Actor Phil Donahue – Talk Show Host Richard Dreyfus – Actor David Duchovny – Actor Sandy Duncan – Actor Gloria Estefan – Singer Melissa Etheridge – Singer Mia Farrow – Actor Mike Farrell – Actor Carrie Fisher – Actor Sally Field – Actor Doug Flutie – NFL player Fannie Flagg – Actor Jane Fonda – Actor Jodie Foster – Actor Rick Fox – NBA Player Andy Garcia – Actor Art Garfunkel – Singer Geraldo Rivera – TV personality Richard Gere – Actor Kathie Lee Gifford – TV personality Elliott Gould – Actor Louis Gossett, Jr. – Actor Bryant Gumbel – TV Personality Ethan Hawke – Actor Mariette Hartley – Actor Mark Harmon – Actor Anne Heche – Actor Howard Hesseman – Actor

Marilu Henner – Actor Dustin Hoffman – Actor

Diane Keaton – Actor Chaka Khan – Singer Lenny Kravits – Singer Lisa Kudrow – Actor k.d. lang – Singer John Leguizamo – Actor Norman Lear – TV Producer

Spike Lee – Director Hal Linden – Actor Tara Lipinski – Former Olympian Keyshawn Johnson – NFL player Rob Lowe – Actor

Madonna – Singer Penny Marshall – Director John McEnroe – Athlete

Bette Midler – Singer Mary Tyler Moore – Actor Michael Moore – Film Maker Mike Nichols – Director

Rosie O’Donnell – Actor/Talk Show Host Jennifer O’Neill – Actor Julia Ormond – Actor Jane Pauley – TV Personality Sarah Jessica Parker – Actor Mandy Patinkin – Actor

Julia Roberts – Actor Meg Ryan – Actor Susan Sarandon – Actor

Will Ferrell – Actor Jamie Foxx – Actor Jennifer Garner – Actor Selena Gomez – Actor Kate Hudson – Actor

Do you also need the list of organizations?

What is your point of asking me for specifics?
It seems to me the typical leftist tactic of arguing something with the prove me wrong nonsense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


you need to understand what banning is and what gun control is

they are not the same thing

buts its a good thing you have ted nugent and scott baio on yourside

PS you haven't proved anything except you think everyones coming for your guns ... and no one on that list has or had the power to make it happen and by listing the "Actors" list you have shown how out of touch your view really is ... please provide the link to the website you got it from.. because you did not dream that up on your own

John made a point I've brought up repeatedly in this always circular debate, that the odds of a Hitler type leader somehow convincing the entire military to support his believe we should all be disarmed is crazy and I doubt that even if they could be convinced; a civilian militia armed with what those willing can bring to the fight are sporting stands a chance.
The Trump vector seems the closest we've gotten the past century, but in this case it's the gun zealots who are his blind supporters.

Still, it's so far off to be a non threat and a foolish errand at that. While the system had a hiccup in 2016 it seems like the key parts are still working if at times a bit clumsy.

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”




Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

but nice try

Through legislation they told their citizens if they have something that was legal yesterday - turn it in or be fined 200-1000 dollars per day. Unless you jump through a bunch of hoops.

For all practical purposes they are confiscating those firearms.

Can you guess who won't be turning them in? The people that already own them illegally.

Just to be clear 'Arms " refers to personal weapons easily carried, not tanks, jets, missile launchers etc.

The Trump vector seems the closest we've gotten the past century, but in this case it's the gun zealots who are his blind supporters.

Still, it's so far off to be a non threat and a foolish errand at that. While the system had a hiccup in 2016 it seems like the key parts are still working if at times a bit clumsy.

Trump is the most likely vector? :rotflmao:

It really should not matter who is President, but thanks for your inclusive approach.

Trump is the most likely vector? :rotflmao:
I said the closest. We've never seen leadership this corrupt with such fanaticism in my lifetime if at all in the last 100 years.

I said the closest. We've never seen leadership this corrupt with such fanaticism in my lifetime if at all in the last 100 years.

Closest - whatever.


:rotflmao: Well, Obama may or may not have been as corrupt (though his ideology surely is) the fanaticism was real. The fanaticism, supported byt the media on how bad Mitt Effing Romney was. Mitt was a Boy Scout and spot on WRT a lot of things. But binders of wimin... And he's gonna putcha back in chains.

GMAFB

Closest - whatever.


:rotflmao: Well, Obama may or may not have been as corrupt (though his ideology surely is) the fanaticism was real. The fanaticism, supported byt the media on how bad Mitt Effing Romney was. Mitt was a Boy Scout and spot on WRT a lot of things. But binders of wimin... And he's gonna putcha back in chains.

GMAFB
Dizzy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dizzy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope - saving the world one server at a time ; )

you need to understand what banning is and what gun control is

they are not the same thing

buts its a good thing you have ted nugent and scott baio on yourside

PS you haven't proved anything except you think everyones coming for your guns ... and no one on that list has or had the power to make it happen and by listing the "Actors" list you have shown how out of touch your view really is ... please provide the link to the website you got it from.. because you did not dream that up on your own

"out of touch MY view is" That is your opinion based on years of your own personal life experiences. Try understanding that listing those peoples' opinions makes my point that these people are influencing all the sheep who pressure those who actually do have the power to ban guns. But I guess you needed me to point that out to you.( I can be condescending also)
And since I did not explain why I listed those, you proclaimed that you win the debate. I never said everyone is coming for my guns, those are your words.
I understand what infringements are.
It's a good thing you have all that money on your side.

So while I am back on this thread again,
here is a nice blog you will get another list for you to mock.

https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/17/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns-2/


too long to copy and paste the whole thing but here is a sample


Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”

Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies”:

“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.” Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Andrew Cuomo

“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” Michael Dukakis

“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!” John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.” Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

“Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

truth

Minnesota Bill Introduced 2018: “Expand the definition of an “assault weapon” to include many semiautomatic pistols, rifles or shotguns and makes possessing them a felony, with the exception of some that were legally registered before February 2018. Those owning a grandfathered assault weapon must undergo a background check, renew their registration annually, and use them only on their property or at a shooting range. Such weapons could not be sold or transferred, only surrendered to law enforcement for destruction.” Even ignoring the “possessing” part the inability to transfer makes it a ban with delayed enforcement.

East Lansing School District has made an official resolution which includes: “Whereas, no civilian should ever be allowed to purchase, possess or use a weapon of mass destruction, including but not limited to automatic and semi-automatic guns, nor be allowed to purchase, possess or use any magazine, clip or other tool designed to deliver rapid-fire ammunition without the need to reload;” (That’s the vast majority of all firearms in American and pretty much anything but single-shot firearms.)

“Kerry Picket, Sirius XM Patriot: ‘Now some would argue that then guns and ammunition would only be available to those with money, those who are wealthy. And that those who are in the lower classes as far as financial terms are concerned would not be able to afford such weapons. Tell me about that.’

“Congressman Danny Davis (D-Ill.): ‘Well I would be just as pleased if neither group were able to get them [guns]. So what I am saying is it doesn’t pose an issue for me because I would like to outlaw them altogether. I am saying I would like to make it where nobody except military personnel would ever have access to these weapons. So it wouldn’t bother me that one category of people couldn’t get them even if the other one was willing to pay the high price for them. Then we use that money for services that are needed and people could make use of them.’
“Picket: ‘So rich people only could own firearms?’
“Congressman Davis: ‘So if rich people could only get firearms then only rich people would be able to pay the price. And if that could prevent some people from getting them, I would want to prevent all people from getting them. But if rich people were willing, and would continue to pay the high price then I’d be happy that we kept the other group from getting them.'” Audio of interview included at this link.

An article at VOX.COM: “Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.”

House Bill effectively a delayed ban on the vast majority of firearms in the US: “The bill prohibits the ‘sale, transfer, production, and importation’ of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.” By banning the transfer they are, in effect, creating a delayed ban. As soon as the current owner of a covered firearm (most of those in the US) dies or otherwise is unable to keep the firearm it cannot be passed on to someone else–like ones heirs. That gun is then gone and no more can replace it.

Daryl Fisher (A Democrat candidate for Sheriff in Buncombe County NC): “Any weapon that is designed for use by the military I think we should ban. You’ve heard people say you have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands. [shrugs] OK.” (Up front about willing to kill to take people’s guns.) What is interesting to note is that while my 1893 Argentine Bolt Action (an antique, old enough that it’s not even regulated by the ATF), my Mosin Nagant rifle, and various other bolt actions, including the extremely popular Remingtin 700 have been used by the US and other militaries, that AR-15 is not (the similar appearing M-16 and M-4, both having full auto or “burst” fire that the AR-15 lacks, are different beasts).

Going back in time a bit, to a bill Senator Diane Feinstein introduced in 2013. “‘The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time,’ Feinstein said. ‘Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.'” After all, ending transfer of the firearms means that when, for whatever reason (including eventual death) a person cannot own their existing weapon it has to be surrendered. A slow confiscation over time is still a confiscation.

“But nobody wants to take our guns?”

Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”
The number of influential people who want to ban "all" guns seems to be extremely small. Most of the quotes on that page are talking about prohibitions on specific weapons only.

There's almost zero public support for the idea of banning "all" guns. Yet, the percentage of the population in favor of tighter restrictions is overwhelming. Politicians are left hamstrung by special interest money over the will of their constituents.

I'll bet you do look good in a weskit and tricorn when you go to church though :hihi:

Maybe because Massachusetts is ranked #1 in mental health care? Oh that's right, we aren't supposed to connect mental health to the gun control issue.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/issues/ranking-states
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or maybe it's because Mass is top 3rd of the country for unemployment?

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

or maybe it's the rather low Suicide rate in Mass, since that gets lumped into all the stats about gun violence.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

one thing I noticed is that if you bounce the Suicide by state against the Unemployment by state, the States with the highest unemployment seem to be in the states with the highest suicide rates.

so maybe if we looked at the more socio-economic issues instead of an inanimate object, maybe we can figure something out.
It’s a lot easier to blame the inanimate object, than it is to accept responsibility for ourselves. One of the cornerstones if liberalism is that no one is responsible for the things they do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of the cornerstones if liberalism is that no one is responsible for the things they do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is why Jim.

I could be OK with a Red Flag law / GVRO / bump stock ban / safe storage laws / additional certification if it was going to stop there, but it won't. I was willing to concede in certain areas but the past 2 months of convinced me (again) that would be a fools compromise to give in.

Well John, time to speak up as your state is next to red flag according to the Governor's panel she assembled that is made up of people who already made up their minds so why they bother to go thru motions is just optics I guess.


https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/10/10/rhode-island-task-force-calls-semi-auto-regulations-magazine-ban/?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=08c09a6ab5a5f844a46d49ca56a4ad72


good luck, we already had our red flag bill rammed thru this summer, my Rep and a dozen or so others voted no but in this state there was no stopping this poorly written law from passing as they slap each others' backs congratulating themselves for "doing" something, as opposed to addressing the actual problem.

Young cited a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”


Young's legal "reasoning" is laughable and is just an example of a leftist statist authoritarian grasping a straws.

Heller's statement that "if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, . . . " isn't comparing appearances, accessories or furniture, it is comparing the full-auto M-16 to other guns that fall under Title II of NFA-34.

The single characteristic that those guns share, making them both "bannable" and thus "like" each other, is the ability to fire more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger.

That's it, full stop . . .

Collapsible stocks, pistol grips, removable magazines, barrel shrouds or flash hiders are NOT mentioned in NFA-34; NONE of those things are of any interest to ATF in determining what differentiates a Title II "banned" gun from a "legal" gun.

This Massachusetts district opinion is just an example of what is to be expected from liberal judges -- lie, cheat and misrepresent and in the end, violate their oaths to the Constitution and dishonor their office.


.

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”


All Scalia is doing here is reciting the law and the unremarkable legal condition as it relates to the public carriage of arms by private citizens. Your chopping of the quote stomps the subject being discussed into a mudhole.


“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

And what has become the most significant part of that paragraph is always left off by the left:26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”



LMAO. When you learn what all that actually means, especially what "dangerous and unusual" weapons are, and why "dangerous and unusual" weapons are not protected arms, you will be much less likely to quote that passage.


The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”


There are two reasons that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were not considered to violate the 2nd Amendment -- First is that the 2nd Amendment had no effect on state laws (until 2010). Second, establishing in law the manner of carriage of arms by citizens has always been a power of the state.

Recently, federal courts have held that the rights that the 2nd Amendment does protect (to keep and bear arms) secures a right to openly carry a gun in public for self defense and states are bound to respect that right. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/open-carry-case-appeals-court-constitutional-right/

Whether that forces a state in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction to institute a 'shall issue' concealed carry permit because they don't want to see a citizen's gun, is up to those states. One way or another, the state must recognize the citizen's right to be armed in public for self defense.


This, like state assault weapon bans, will soon be before the Supreme Court; you should enjoy your illegitimate laws while they last.


.

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“. . . But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”


And that's what the left just doesn't get.



Redefining, reworking and remolding the original, fundamental, pre-existing, never surrendered right to arms is not within the purview of any court or legislature.


Scalia expands on this principle multiple times in Heller:"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."
And that scope of protection, of prohibiting government gaining a foothold to restrain the right, is not diminished with time, technological advancements or especially, the aggrandizing opinion of liberals about being enlightened and unburdened by the framer's intent."Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
(internal citations removed)

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
While the right to arms is not an "unlimited" right, that doesn't mean that government's constitutional ability to restrain the right is limitless:
" . . . the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

.

And that's what the left just doesn't get.

Redefining, reworking and remolding the original, fundamental, pre-existing, never surrendered right to arms is not within the purview of any court or legislature.


Scalia expands on this principle multiple times in Heller:"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."
And that scope of protection, of prohibiting government gaining a foothold to restrain the right, is not diminished with time, technological advancements or especially, the aggrandizing opinion of liberals about being enlightened and unburdened by the framer's intent."Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
(internal citations removed)

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
While the right to arms is not an "unlimited" right, that doesn't mean that government's constitutional ability to restrain the right is limitless:
" . . . the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

.


The unqualified notion that constitutional rights are not absolute opens the door to limiting those rights. And it does so in a way that infers there need not be any end to further limitations.

Without specifically delineating how those rights are limited, and in what way they do have a claim to being absolute, leaves the uninformed with the impression that there are no limits to abridging any right so long as there is a compelling government interest to do so.

As Scalia said "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all." And yet we have this widespread acceptance of Progressive jurisprudence which thrives on the judicial practice of "interpreting" the Constitution via a Judge's opinion of what the text "should" mean in the light of his view of what is "just" in present circumstance. Which essentially concedes that there are no constitutional guarantees. That there are only rights promulgated by judicial opinion.