Civil Rights

[Slipknot]

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

[wdmso]

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 ..

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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 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.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

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/frontl...ocon/guns.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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/frontl...ocon/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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[scottw]

[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

[Slipknot]

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.s...assachu_1.html


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

sad state of affairs for sure

[ecduzitgood]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/2...-shows?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

[detbuch]

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I saw that one

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

AR 15s are not military grade rifles.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

AR 15s are not military grade rifles.

Lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

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.

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

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).

Originally Posted by Nebe

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?

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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/de...rnd/index.html

Pete: http://www.reformer.com/stories/will...ictions,536718

Originally Posted by PaulS

A new low for this forum.

Nahhhh, hold my beer ; )

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Wayne: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/de...rnd/index.html

Pete: http://www.reformer.com/stories/will...ictions,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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.