AG Maura Healey taking questions. What to ask?

I'd ask her: "How can you claim that banning "Assault Rifles" was done for "public safety", when only about 1 or 2 people are killed in Massachusetts per year with a long gun, not even necessarily an "assault rifle"? Seems like it's a non-issue to me."
Last edited:
The only way is to trap her in a multifaceted question where she has to answer both parts or one traps the other, such as a question about gay rights and the ability for those typically targeted to protect themselves and then phrase in a way where the ultimate theme of the question results in the answer that "gays and minorities don't matter", something like this:

You: AG Healey, what are you doing to further protect the gay(s) and minority(s) considering that in the past 6 months they have lost the ability to protect themselves from what previously were lawful firearms?"
AG: (dodges question by pivoting and makes a statement) I am and have always will be a champion for the gay and minority community"
You: So your saying that gay and/or minorities individual(s) rights don't matter and as you put their safety in jeopardy due to your edict last July?

Thus by making the distinction between community (public) and the person (individual) you have cause here to disfranchise the one (or more) gay and/or minority person(s) that might be there. Watch the backtracking commence.
Last edited:
Anything that remotely smacks of criticism could cost you your job. I suggest inviting her to the range.
Stuff a bra and you are gtg. She will hug and kiss you. Maybe even lick you if tou are lucky. Then she will avoid an answer at all costs. She is running for the corner office ya know.
"Ms. Healy how would you feel if a Republican activist retroactively took away your constitutional right for women to vote by re-interpreting existing law?"

This is the core of the analogy I've been using all along for the DAILY assault on 2A. For bonus points ask how the 19th amendment can possibly be more
important than anything in the "ORIGINAL 10" Bill of Rights.
I italicized the word "politely" very intentionally. I don't want to jeopardize my career there, but I would still like the ability to question our elected officials. I'd like to keep my job, I'm pretty well dug in there.

Don't say a word and take the day off. Otherwise you are smoked there. They are hardcore believers if they are letting that twat politicize their business. Why do you think that politicians love employer visits? Everyone wants their job instead of losing their job by asking a negative question that the media will never air.
I'd ask her: "How can you claim that banning "Assault Rifles" was done for public safety, when only about 1 or 2 people are killed in Massachusetts per year with a long gun, not even necessarily an "assault rifle"? Hardly seems like there was even an issue to me."

"I was delighted when you banned assault rifles in Mass, roughly how many lives will this save?"
Ask her if it's OK to regulate and or ban other rights? 1st, 4th, 3rd, etc.. Ask her how does it prevent criminals, gang bangers etc.. from getting weapons or doing harm ! Ask her if it's a right if you need a plastic card from the .gov. Ask her why she uses the constitution for her needs, but ignores it for the citizens !
She's coming to your place of employment because the owners gave her an invitation. That means that your employer thinks that they will get something out of this visit. As fun as it will be to ask her pointed questions and embarrass her, if you do so I strongly suspect you will be out of a job the next day if not sooner.

Remember, the 1st amendment protects you from government censorship. It has nothing to do with your employer (unless your employer is also the government, and then the answer is, "it depends").
I'd suggest asking what the ban is based on. To be specific, how many MA residents have been killed with an AR, ever, per year, whatever?

The same could be said nationwide actually. Rifles make up a small percentage of all murders according to the FBI's statistics. In fact there are more murders committed each year with hands and feet as the weapon than there are with rifles, more murders committed with blunt objects (like a baseball bat) than there are with rifles. Since ARs are just a sub-category of all rifles, it stands that there are fewer people killed by ARs than by all rifles.
Isn't it true that more people were put in danger by the indiscriminate weapons firing by LEOs during the manhunt for the Tsarnev brothers than legally owned MSR?
I would go with something along the lines of how she's made great strides in making it harder for citizens to obtain a firearm. then ask what has she done to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain illegally...
"Ms. Healy how would you feel if a Republican activist retroactively took away your constitutional right for women to vote by re-interpreting existing law?"


I like this. Whatever you do please do not mention anything about confiscation to this broad. We all know she is crazy enough to pull publicity stunts and we don't need another one.
You need two questions, about due process. Question 1 is in regards to say would an action against gay rights without due process of law be permitted? Question 2, why is it that it is okay to infringe on some rights, such as our 2A, without due process but not others?

I think if you can catch her in a contradiction/ analogy that reaches out to people it would make our side more reasonable to them.

BINGO! We have a winner here. She won't even see it coming.
First, its a Q+A. She will answer a question and that's it. (if she even answers). There is no second question. There is no debate that many of the proposed questions would try to lead to. Best you could do is a mike drop question. "As a gay man, i really felt alienated in this world, that has started to get better in recent years, but then there was a reinterpretation of the law governing my rifle, and now i feel alienated all over again and worse as its now a legal grey area. How do you intend to protect the few like me?" (the gay part was put in to try relate to discrimination, Of course any co-workers that know you are married to a female my have a WTF look. lol )

Second, anything that sounds negative or offensive (like you are attacking her or her tactics) will likely not help your employment situation, and likely not be answered. (so cross out that mike drop question above)

Third, she is smart. As much as i loath her, she is smart, conniving and likely has an rebuttal for anything you can say, and she gets the last word. Plus everyone there is looking up to her and thinks she is a leader. Its a no win situation.

Finally, i think the best advice may be take the day off. I do like the idea of playing the snowflake position and ask whats next (like confiscation) but not sure you will get an answer there. She wont let the cat out of the bag.

Me: I think i would get a "Make America great again" hat, sit in the front row and just stare at her the entire time with a creepy smile. Passive aggressive style. But i DGAF about my employer. I am replaceable, but so are they.
Last edited:
She'll see everything coming, and is a politician who is in a protected class - above the law. She'll deflect or bloviate, but don't expect an honest answer.
If I was given the option, I would ask her to explain the gun show loophole between legal firearms owners she always claims.

A: Because its a gun show where people come together and buy guns. We need to close that loophole.
(not a lie, not the full picture, an answer that pushes her agenda. )
Ask her now that she's redefined "copies and duplicates" what's the next thing she's going to redefine.

ETA: If you really want to get to her, ask her if she can redefine marriage back to the way it used to be since marriage is not a guaranteed right listed in the constitution.
Last edited:
1.) If your interpretation of the AW is correct how do you explain why your predecessors interpreted it differently? Were they negligent?
2.) if I bought a firearm during that time which was perfectly legal what are my assurances that I will not be arrested in the future by someone claiming I committed a felony?
3.) Since the Massachusetts AW law is simply a continuation of the federal,ban which expired, how do you explain that your interpretation differs from the US Attorney Generals, the ATF and all other Federal Agencies charged with enforcing that ban during that time.
Ask her if she plans to move to Canada with all of the other snowflakes that can't seem to accept the results of a democratic election.
Serious answer... My HR department was very concerned about our beloved AG, when they learned that over 40 senior engineers, operations, master machinist, and IT staff were suddenly felons waiting for prosecution. Political BS aside, it's a real retention problem when the most productive and valuable employees start house shopping in Free America.
Unless you are untouchable, keep politics out of your workplace. Avoid temptation and don't go.

I agree with this but will add that NOBODY is untouchable. If "The powers that be" think it's a good idea to invite Maura to inspect their company, they're not the kind of people I'd want to work for. It doesn't take long for an untouchable to become touchable then unnecessary.
Top Bottom