Abington Murder

ericdimarzio said:
It is these seemingly extreme positions which paint gun owners in a poor light drive people on the left to take extreme positions the other way and which in turn turn those in the middle into single issue voters, especially in this neck of the woods. These single issue voters tend to swing many elections and I fear they shall again.
Click to expand...

IMO most antis I've met are not single issue voters. For example, if Hitlery or Obama were both actually "pro gun" many of these moonbats would still vote for either of them- the main reason being that most of them are more concerned about other moonbat issues like socialized medicine, welfare, and public education.

A little known fact about the anti-gun movement is that it is basically a parasite on the democrat platform. It's only gotten where it has because it's been "along for the ride" and prominent antis have gotten the ear of inner city politicos, celebrities, and other prominent individuals. It only gains any traction at all in places where there isn't enough opposition- they win by default. not by a groundswell of support.... For instance, how many anti-gun voter ballot initiatives have you seen come up? (rarely, if ever... only one I can think of offhand was the SF handgun ban...) In the grand scheme of things there really aren't that many anti gun single issue voters. There might be some in the big cities, but in the other 95% of the US, forget it.

I've often postulated that if there were about 4 buses full of the worst antis that it would set the whole gun control movement back a few decades if said buses mysteriously fell off a cliff somewhere. The "movement" is really smaller than they make it out to be. Doesn't mean it isn't a problem, but everywhere you look there are antis overstating their existence. For example, if Brady, etc, was so powerful, then why do they need George Soros virtually underwriting the whole thing? (Hell, that guy alone probably pays for half the anti gun crap in america.... )

-Mike
 
ericdimarzio said:
But it aggravates me when the NRA opposes legislation such things as database legislation or restrictions for those with previous mental illness. These to me are common sense rules which do have a far greater effect on public safety than laws which tell us what we can have, how to store it, etc.
Click to expand...

Again, you're illustrating exactly why liberals don't "get it" in my opinion. I don't believe the government should have the right, or ability, to have a "database" on anything that I've done legally. That includes counseling, mental health issues, firearms I've purchased, etc. The government isn't my mommy. It should take a small percentage of my taxes, then provide me with the services I require. Period.
 
ericdimarzio said:
As far as ACLU vs NRA I agree with a previous poster who said that they are not mutually exclusive. However, I feel that the NRA's seemingly knee jerk reaction to all regulation does more harm than good which is why I hesitate join. The NRA can no doubt be a valuable voice for gun owning America, however I feel it would be better served if it took a more moderated approach. To all the more experienced members I meant no disrespect. I am not some young kid trying to start trouble. I merely wished to bring a different perspective. Not one of a patronizing, educated Obama type which is how I fear last night's post came across but rather one of a newcomer who was raised in a household which abhorred the possession and use of firearms. Hopefully this will go far to clear up any misrepresentations I may have unintentionally made in my previous post.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you on the NRA. I dislike intensely their knee-jerk reaction, which is to appease gun-grabbers like you and the AHSA. Most of the gun laws that get proposed do absolutely NOTHING to reduce crime and everything to restrict rights of law-abiding citizens. Licensing laws, NFA '34, GCA '68, our very own gun act of '98 - laws that pretty well outlaw silencers (when was the last time you EVER heard of a "silencer" (a misnomer) being used in a murder? Outside of James Bond, that is. For that matter, how about a legally owned class 3 weapon being used in a crime? I think that there's ONE example on the books), that ban mail order, that require registration (the easier to confiscate your guns, my dear!), that ban carrying on school campuses, that require people to get licensed, outlaw imported guns that are "too small", that outlaw importing cheap surplus ammo, that ban importing steel-core ammo that might, oh, horrors, be used SOMEWHERE in a "handgun", etc.

Hot news flash, Eric: there are ALREADY laws agains murder, assault, etc. Know what? They've been around for CENTURIES. Know what else? THEY DON'T DO SHIT TO STOP CRIME. All a law does is let us punish someone AFTER they've committed a crime. What your "reasonable" gun control does is disarm folks (here in MA, to take an example) who can't afford the $100 tax on a license, who can't afford to pay $500 for a j-frame but who'd still like to protect themselves. They might buy a cheap KelTec... oh, wait - our AG has banned those here - they're not "safe" enough. It's for the children, you know.

I used to think like you did. Then I opened my eyes and realized that there's always another "reasonable" gun control law that's "needed", and that you people won't stop until we're a clone of Great Britain. You think that the NRA is rabid? Hah. Go check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or the Gun Owners of America - those guys don't believe in making deals with the devil like the NRA does.

Oh, and just to make sure you understand where I'm coming from, I, too, "was raised in a household which abhorred the possession and use of firearms". Unlike you, however, I have learned to think for myself. Having a friend killed by a punk out on parole - in NYC - with a .357 (you counting how many laws that a**h*** broke here?) will do that to you. Especially if said friend was ex-military and was FORBIDDEN BY LAW (Sullivan Act) to carry a gun of his own to defend his life with.

I'm sure that I'm going to get a few negative rep points for this post... and I don't care.
 
dwarven1 said:
I'm sure that I'm going to get a few negative rep points for this post... and I don't care.
Click to expand...

Not from me. I hesitated to join the NRA due to their policy of appeasing the gun grabbers. I eventually decided to join due to their excellent support of safety and training programs. I'm also a member of GOA, and JPFO is next on my list.
 
Consider this

ericdimarzio said:
It is a mentality I have seen many times in my limited experience and one that I have seen on some of these boards and this is the mentality, held by a minority of gun owners no doubt, that drives many people away from supporting gun owner's rights.
Click to expand...

Eric, I won't bust your chops above and beyond what's been said. Instead let me offer you another perspective on this particular community and the particularly animated responses you've received. First off, I understand your point; I've seen the "my c**k takes 30 rounds of .308" mentality that you're referring to on other boards. That's not the case here. Derek and the Mods run a tight ship and the community is largely thoughtful, generally resulting in well-researched, lively discussions. It takes a lot of work to keep it that way. Naturally you can see why your post raised some hackles.

My advice. Read, assimilate, contribute; and in everything you do aim to make the board better when you post. Then you'll gel, Scrivener will hand you your nuts one fine day and you'll be good to go.

R. Duke
 
Raoul Duke said:
Eric, I won't bust your chops above and beyond what's been said. Instead let me offer you another perspective on this particular community and the particularly animated responses you've received. First off, I understand your point; I've seen the "my c**k takes 30 rounds of .308" mentality that you're referring to on other boards. That's not the case here. Derek and the Mods run a tight ship and the community is largely thoughtful, generally resulting in well-researched, lively discussions. It takes a lot of work to keep it that way. Naturally you can see why your post raised some hackles.

My advice. Read, assimilate, contribute; and in everything you do aim to make the board better when you post. Then you'll gel, Scrivener will hand you your nuts one fine day and you'll be good to go.

R. Duke
Click to expand...

I appreciate you seeing what I am seeing. My mention of it had nothing to do with whether or not it was here on the board just that it is present in the gun owning community and needs to be weeded out. As far as assimilation there is no doubt that you have to adjust to social norms, however over assimilation by Congress was what got us the tyranny of the Patriot act and allowed a President to break the consitution on a fairly regular basis. Let me draw your attention to the U.S. Constitution Article 1 section 7 Section 8. "The Congress shall have power to ... declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;To provide and maintain a navy;To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;..." You cannot ask people to tone down their opinions in the interest of assimilation and still truly have a free and open society. I have gone to great lengths to state my opinions in such a way as to be measured, intelligent, and non offensive. However, this old world "get in line" mentality is precisely what stifles this free exchange. I respect the vast majority fo the responses to my posts as intelligent and well thought out and I believe to be a good and helpful board. But that does not mean that by stating an opinion contrary to the norm I am showing this board any disrespect. To the contrary, in doing so I am showing this board the utmost respect by taking the time to write about what I feel is important
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ericdimarzio said:
assimilation by Congress was what got us the tyranny of the Patriot act and allowed a President to break the consitution on a fairly regular basis.
Click to expand...

What are you missing? Do you not realize that the Second Amendment was created in order to prevent a government of tyranny? How is it that those who are so quick to cry tyranny are so quick to give up their only means of protecting themselves from it? And not that I disagree with you about the integrity of the Patriot Act, by the way.
 
BOBKATT said:
What are you missing? Do you not realize that the Second Amendment was created in order to prevent a government of tyranny? How is it that those who are so quick to cry tyranny are so quick to give up their only means of protecting themselves from it? And not that I disagree with you about the integrity of the Patriot Act, by the way.
Click to expand...

I have never made mention about opposing the second amendment as I support it. If I did oppose it I would not be a gun owner, I just believe in reasonable restrictions upon it.
 
ericdimarzio said:
I have never made mention about opposing the second amendment as I support it. If I did oppose it I would not be a gun owner, I just believe in reasonable restrictions upon it.
Click to expand...

In some ideal world, I'd be accepting of a few "reasonable restrictions" too. Forinstance, I think it's reasonable that no convicted felon should be allowed to own a gun.

However, I think you need to look hard at the "death by thousand cuts" methods of the antis and then get back to us on how reasonable the restrictions will really be.
 
ericdimarzio said:
I have never made mention about opposing the second amendment as I support it. If I did oppose it I would not be a gun owner, I just believe in reasonable restrictions upon it.
Click to expand...

And what restrictions do you feel are "reasonable?"

Given the mess of the MA gun laws and the fact that it takes over 400 pages for Ron Glidden to explain MA gun laws to other police officers, I have to say that I can not fathom how anyone could say we need to have more restrictions:

http://www.municipalpoliceinstitute.org/product-detail.php?productid=11

Furthermore, Vermont has far less restrictions than MA and yet a much lower rates of murder and violent crime.

The simple fact is that gun control does not stop crime. Australia and Great Britain have both tightened their gun control laws significantly over recent years, but violent crime and murder has risen nevertheless.
 
ericdimarzio said:
I have never made mention about opposing the second amendment as I support it. If I did oppose it I would not be a gun owner, I just believe in reasonable restrictions upon it.
Click to expand...

Well, the second amendment does include the phrase "shall not be infringed". Do you support that part of the amendment as well? Do you have the right to pick and choose now not only what amendments are valid, but what words or phrases within an amendment are valid?
 
Lugnut said:
I'm glad you know what I knew. cool.
Click to expand...
If you knew that this guy had confessed in the 911 phone call when I made my post, why did you not correct me on it?

BASED ON WHAT I KNEW AT THAT TIME; ie, that he'd been arrested and he was a lawful gun owner, I felt that everyone was rushing to condemn him without even the benefit of a trial. I was not aware of his confession when I posted that - were you? Or did you immediately read the first article and conclude that he was scum, based on what you knew - ie, he was her husband and he owned a gun?
 
no no no

ericdimarzio said:
As far as assimilation there is no doubt that you have to adjust to social norms, however over assimilation by Congress was what got us the tyranny of the Patriot act and allowed a President to break the consitution (sic) on a fairly regular basis...
Click to expand...

Actually, I meant for you to assimilate all of the good information on the board. This, naturally, is the precursor to not asking duplicate questions.

I never meant, nor would you ever hear me recommend, that you be someone your not.
 
Last edited:
my apologies for that misinterpretation, that is just a word that has always hit a nerve with me, especially given the politics of the past 8 years
 
Of course

ericdimarzio said:
my apologies for that misinterpretation, that is just a word that has always hit a nerve with me, especially given the politics of the past 8 years
Click to expand...

Indeed. The dictionary supplies two meanings. I meant only the first.

1 a: to take in and utilize as nourishment : absorb into the system b: to take into the mind and thoroughly comprehend.

I understand that "The Borg" and legions of Treckies have probably forever altered the nature of the word....sigh.

[grin]
 
Just read through this thread, RIP to Babs, she looked like a nice girl. I hope that SOB John whatever rots in a jail cell since we don't have death penalties here in Mass.

I am not saying her Brother should have shot him, but I certainly would support him if he had. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but I am sure I am not alone...
 
drgrant said:
For instance, how many anti-gun voter ballot initiatives have you seen come up? (rarely, if ever... only one I can think of offhand was the SF handgun ban...)
Click to expand...

Interestingly, it was on the Massachusetts ballot in Nov 1976 -- and it failed miserably. "You could look it up".

Imagine, in the year Jimmy Carter was elected.

It is my impression that GOAL was formed to respond to the Handgun Ban Initiative. The Ban initially polled such that it would easily pass. After shedding light on it, people began to think about it an rejected it (memory says it was 3:1 against).

I assert that the MA SJC took Commonwealth v Davis as a direct appeal in January 1976, because they wanted to weigh in with their opinion to the people of Massachusetts that there was NO right to keep and bear arms, and therefore the Handgun Ban Initiative was Constitutional if it passed.
 
I just believe in reasonable restrictions upon it

ericdimarzio said:
I have never made mention about opposing the second amendment as I support it. If I did oppose it I would not be a gun owner, I just believe in reasonable restrictions upon it.[/QUOTE]

Now you sound just like Obama and Hillary! You have written the words which they have spoken. One problem is: what is the definition of reasonable? Please don't bother as this thread is about a young man who in an admitted rage of jealousy, murdered his wife leaving two young children to the care of relatives. The unusual discussion is really centered, IMHO on the fact that this young man was a licensed gun owner. It is a rare day when a licensed gun owner commits such a heinous crime.
Best regards.
Click to expand...
 
Riverside said:
Now you sound just like Obama and Hillary! You have written the words which they have spoken. One problem is: what is the definition of reasonable? Please don't bother as this thread is about a young man who in an admitted rage of jealousy, murdered his wife leaving two young children to the care of relatives. The unusual discussion is really centered, IMHO on the fact that this young man was a licensed gun owner. It is a rare day when a licensed gun owner commits such a heinous crime.
Best regards.
Click to expand...

He is a liberal, what do you expect? [wink]
 
If the brother loved his sister that much I think that her children will be well cared for. That's the only good part of this story.

And a few words for Eric. The problem with reasonable restrictions is that only those people that weren't a problem in the first place follow them. So they only restrict those individuals that weren't committing crimes in the first place. IE "Gun Free Zones". There is abundant evidence that declaring a place a "Gun Free Zone" does nothing to prevent someone from entering that place and committing murder. I really can't understand how someone can believe that someone that is hell bent on (mass)murder, and in most cases suicide, is going to be deterred by the penalty associated with a possession violation. What it does do is insure that the good people have very little chance of stopping, impeding, or even preventing that mass murder from occurring.

The other factor is the slippery slope. Every time gun control advocates get a law to pass they immediately move onto the next one, than the next one, than the next one. All along making wild estimations about how effective the currently proposed restriction or ban will be at stopping crime. And they invariably have no effect at all. Take the 1994 AWB for instance. No one can provide any evidence at all that in the 10 years it was in effect that it had any effect on crime whatsoever. Yet they want to make it permanent. Why? What would be the point if it had no effect at all on crime? Isn't stopping crime the goal? So if it has absolutely no effect toward it's stated goal of stopping crime why are we even considering passing it again? Because the real goal of the gun controllers is not to stop crime despite what they claim. Their goal is to restrict your second amendment rights in any and every way possible. To take away your last line of defense of your other rights. Crime prevention is the smoke screen used to hide their true intentions.

Everyone on this board would love nothing better than for crime to end. For my guns to needed for nothing more than hunting and plinking. I own guns not because of a power trip or paranoia. I own guns because I am aware that crime is a major problem and that it can strike at anytime and anywhere. And I want to have the best chance I have to not end up a statistic.

I'm not Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, neither of whom can stop bullets. There is an interview with Lee where he talks about how no matter how good anyone is in any martial art that they are at a complete disadvantage up against someone with a gun. Yes, in some cases the creep may be disarmed, but it is such a small percentage as to be irrelevant, and not nearly as easy as some would lead you to believe.
 

Similar threads

2 men found guilty of murder in Jam Master Jay killing
Replies
9
Views
292
inerlogic
inerlogic
Ohio man, 81, is charged with murder for shooting dead female Uber driver who was called by a scammer to pick up parcel outside his home
Replies
11
Views
405
slugworth
slugworth
NM cop is charged with murder after shocking video showed him shooting grandmother three times as she was driving away
Replies
9
Views
493
hillman
hillman
Black Teens Arrested After Elderly Homeless White Man Murdered in Parking Lot
Replies
12
Views
357
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Massachusetts Aspiring Nurse Murdered By Boyfriend Of Two Months
Replies
4
Views
437
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom