-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Charlie Baker on 2A
- Thread starter Paul455
- Start date
pastera
NES Member
Democrats make a choice in the primary and vote in the election, period. They understand that while they may want a mile, a millimeter is better than losing ground.
Patrick didn't push gun control strongly but I believe Coakley would as it doesn't take much thought and gets airtime. I think Baker will be like Patrick, he will sign it if it's dropped on his desk but won't expend political capital to get it. So, if he's better on taxes then he is a millimeter or more in the right direction.
Patrick didn't push gun control strongly but I believe Coakley would as it doesn't take much thought and gets airtime. I think Baker will be like Patrick, he will sign it if it's dropped on his desk but won't expend political capital to get it. So, if he's better on taxes then he is a millimeter or more in the right direction.
Democrats do as they are told for the promise of "Free stuff".
The problem here is that we aren't gaining any ground with Baker. At best we are losing it slightly slower, but that is optimistic.
That is the crux of the problem. Politics is not symmetrical for those who believe in freedom. We have to do something different.
I say this out loud, honestly wondering what to do....
I hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. I hate the idea of hating for a rino, POS GOV like Baker, but the thought of Coakley becoming a reality is truly frightening.
Regardless, I am on my way out of this state. But, o still have a little time left to deal with the political bottom feeders both parties have to offer
I hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. I hate the idea of hating for a rino, POS GOV like Baker, but the thought of Coakley becoming a reality is truly frightening.
Regardless, I am on my way out of this state. But, o still have a little time left to deal with the political bottom feeders both parties have to offer
You overestimate the power of the governor (especially in a state with a veto-proof congress). Patrick pushed hard for OGAM and never got it. I imagine coakley is less anti-gun then patrick. But baker, like both coakley and patrick will not be a friend to 2A.
Mike
Answer me this: Who are the weakest of Republican reps? The reps who will break from leadership and vote the governors wishes.
There are 3 that I can think of. (who will turn on 2A just to appease the governor.)
Disclaimer: I truly believe Baker will win, meaning, and the massed votes of NES (either way) won't be the deciding factor.
There are 3 that I can think of. (who will turn on 2A just to appease the governor.)
Disclaimer: I truly believe Baker will win, meaning, and the massed votes of NES (either way) won't be the deciding factor.
Yes, as ****ing retarded as that sounds yes. Republicans will unite against Democrats. With a Republican in, the caucus will be split.
Disclaimer: I beleive Charlie will win this election with or without the gun vote.
Your viewpoint has been well documented in this thread. I was not referring to you but since you feel the need to jab your points through once again. Martha Coakley is 100% flat out evil in regards to 2A. \
Lets take a hypothetical shall we:
Mass shooting in Boston mall.
10 dead 25 injured and shooter off'ed himself with his AR15 before LEO could close in.
What exactly do you think Coakley would do with a chance for fame like this?
What do you think Baker would do with that same chance?
I think that Coakley would demand "common sense" laws ASAP and may get them.
I think Baker would hunker down and ride the storm out.
What say you...
Acujeff
NES Member
Baker supports current gun laws and Coakley wants more gun control. Baker is against illegal guns and Coakley is against legal guns. Martha Coakley has banned legal guns and ammunition sales and has abused her office to turn legal gun owners into criminals i.e. gun storage prosecution.
It's obvious who's the greater threat to the 2A.
Last edited:
I think he would advocate for "common sense solutions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals"
Although your hypothetical is impossible because AR-15s are banned in Boston
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Let me jab something else through.
If anyone is interested in helping to get out the vote for pro 2A candidates feel free to PM me. I will email you a script and a list of numbers to call for pro gun GOAL endorsed candidates.
I don't think Coakley will win at all. I think Baker will win.
if you somehow think that I am advocating for a Coakley win, you haven't been comprehending my posts.
(I'm not being flippant, I have stated my theory. It is pretty clear) I'm no political scientist but.. he used Democrat blank votes from the primary to lay out his ground game for the general.
Charlie will win without your vote.
But I digress, are you willing to make some calls for Brad Wyatt?
Acujeff
NES Member
Ok, since you avoided answering my question, I'll rephrase it. You've put a lot of effort on this thread to promote your "theory". Do you think the pro 2A candidates would agree with your "theory", that the election is settled, and we shouldn't bother to vote for Baker?
Are you willing to take some time to GOTV for Wyatt or are you going to keep speaking out against my theory? I will be working the better part on Monday and Tuesday to get Pro RKBA people elected.
So , for the last time: Are you willing to make some calls for Wyatt?
Acujeff
NES Member
You know when you don't answer direct questions you don't seem accountable and you lose credibility. Your theory was promoted in previous elections, on this and other gun forums, and we indeed wound up with worse anti-2A democrats Patrick, Obama and Warren. Do us a favor FSTC, and call Wyatt and ask him what he thinks of your theory, if the election is settled, and if we shouldn't bother to vote for Baker.
Let us know if he agrees with you.
Yeah, I think Coakley has enough love out there for Baker to win regardless, but the problem is our side doesn't seem to understand what this will cost us for future elections.
Baker winning == MOAR Baker in future elections.
That's how the election monster processes information. It is a retarded monster with lots of fangs and talons. It does not think or learn good...
If you thank them for a pack of saltines with your "chowda", they back up a truck and bury you in crackers next time around.
I'm not sure Baker is all that different in regards to guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2YfoFkzvE#t=19
Yes but it won't be bi-partisan. With Baker they can do all the same things and can brag about it being bi-partisan.
As I have pointed out before a rino could actually be worse because all the dems that support gun control will still continue to do so and the rinos will say he's one of us so they will go along with it and claim that they did things in a bi-partisan way.
As I have pointed out before a rino could actually be worse because all the dems that support gun control will still continue to do so and the rinos will say he's one of us so they will go along with it and claim that they did things in a bi-partisan way.
Another thing to consider:
How dangerous do you think the relationship will be between a gov'r Croakley and her former employee AG Healey??That is a marriage made in HELL for us! That buddy-buddy system will likely cause us more harm in the next 8 years than either one alone.
Just something to chew on!![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...arlie-baker/FiqX6wKfUOE7VJ6KIwiUoO/story.html
I don't think that's why Bloomberg is backing Baker.
Gotta vote Baker anyway, just to hear Martha's concession speech.
Acujeff
NES Member
So the video, which is a PAC ad, says he supports current gun laws and is against "illegal" guns. Are you saying that is the same position as Coakley who wants more gun control and is against "legal" guns and gun owners? Coakley is the only candidate that actually has a record of banning legal guns and harassing legal gun owners. I must be missing something, please explain your logic.
GM-GUY
NES Member
I pulled up a couple sites that compare all 5 candidates - they all suck.
They each seem to have the theory that the gov't can do better than individuals, they don't seem to want to listen to the people. Immigration, Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption, 2A, Taxes.
They all have things I agree with and things I consider a poison pill.
No, no decision made yet.
They each seem to have the theory that the gov't can do better than individuals, they don't seem to want to listen to the people. Immigration, Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption, 2A, Taxes.
They all have things I agree with and things I consider a poison pill.
No, no decision made yet.
I don't know if that's true about Bloomberg backing Baker. Look at what Baker said:
http://www.masslive.com/politics/ind...ker_defen.html
I'm still voting for him because I feel he is much better for the Massachusetts economy than Coakley. He may be better, he may be worse than Coakley when it comes to 2a rights here. I guess time will tell. Either way, gaining back our gun rights is a lost cause in MA through legislation. The only way we will ever get our rights back is through the courts.
Horrible
NES Member
We'll be rallying at the State House again whether Baker or Croakley are our next Governor.
I will be voting Baker, b/c Marsha has no idea how to create jobs and improve the economy and has proven to be a stooge when it comes to political corruption.
I'm saying he supports the ban of assault weapons, and yes I'm aware that it's a PAC ad, so it doesn't technically have his DNA on it. This ad is not the first time I've heard that he supports the ban, he just doesn't want to do it openly, thus the PAC ad. Nice little buffer.
Last edited:
Alex9661
NES Member
I'm not a Baker fan, but publicly opposing an AWB would be a political suicide. That's MA, for 90% of the population assault weapons=machine guns, something that was used to kill children in CT. I'm pretty sure that Baker doesn't really care about 2A issues, he's just saying whatever's expedient. AFAIK we have a choice between someone who doesn't care about our guns and someone who wants to take our guns away.
I don't know if I'd go that far. You don't get endorsed by Bloomberg without being an anti, at some level or another. That's a pretty dangerous sign. Coakley is definitely dangerous but Baker could POTENTIALLY be a lot worse due to the fact that there's no institutional built-in hatred of him yet by the legislature. That's one of the few things that saved us from Uhaul Patrick rolling all over us; the legislature ****ing hated him, basically since he took office. that made it very difficult for him to champion his own anti gun agendas and get external support. He brought up OGAM like 3 times and the legislature shit all over it because they didn't like the notion of "taking marching orders" from Deval. Baker is probably going to win regardless of whatever any of us here vote (because Martha sucks so badly at politics) so best thing to do is prepare to apply pressure after he gets in.
-Mike
