• 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.

Gun grabbers not wasting anytime- Part II

LoginName

LoginName

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,230
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Senator Kennedy, Governor-Elect Patrick, Other Advocates Of Tougher Gun Laws Sweep Key Massachusetts Races
For Immediate Release:
11-08-2006

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Boston, MA - Deval Patrick, who made support for common sense gun laws a cornerstone of his campaign, won a resounding victory in the Massachusetts Governor’s race. In addition, Martha Coakley was victorious in the race for the state’s Attorney General and supporters of stronger gun laws swept the U.S. Senate and Congressional races here.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its network of Massachusetts Million Mom March Chapters, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Against Trafficking Handguns (MATH) Coalition, supported the candidates that swept the top races in the state including Patrick, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, Attorney General-Elect Martha Coakley and all ten of the state’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“In this election, the gun issue was in play, gun violence prevention groups won while the gun pushers lost, and there is now a shift in momentum on the issue of common sense gun restrictions,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Republican Gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey and Attorney General candidate Larry Frisoli, were both endorsed by the NRA and touted their endorsements thinking it would help them statewide. “Yesterday, some candidates discovered that having the support of the gun pushers does not help with voters who want safer neighborhoods,” Helmke said. “We look forward to working with the Patrick administration and the new Attorney General to strengthen Massachusetts’s gun laws and get illegal guns off the streets.”

“We are very pleased that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this state rejected the gun lobby and elected champions of gun violence prevention. Deval Patrick and Martha Coakley understand what the victims of gun violence go through, and they know what we need to do to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals,” said Nancy Robinson, spokesperson for the MATH Coalition.

#
 
I'll wait and see what happens when they get all the illegal guns and still have gun crim of epidemic proportions....what will their excuse be then.....

How the hell is my neighborhood less safe with me in it? Have I violated anyone? NO!!!!
 
Time to step up

Time for GOAL/NRA to get REAL proactive and contact the new political team to volunteer to work on their cause and keep them informed of reality!!
 
daceman63 said:
I'll wait and see what happens when they get all the illegal guns and still have gun crim of epidemic proportions....what will their excuse be then.....

How the hell is my neighborhood less safe with me in it? Have I violated anyone? NO!!!!
Click to expand...


There will only be the call for MORE laws. [sad2]
 
csharpdev said:
The problem is that they are not going after illigal guns and criminals as tougher gun laws only target leagal guns and law abiding citizens... but then again what do I know, I'm a gun pusher.
Click to expand...

That is our defense of our gun rights. The mere fact that they are targeting legal gun owners will do nothing to reduce crime as we are not the ones committing those crimes. On top of that the majority of gun crime is related to drugs. We need to be more vocal in the media to get those points across.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.....
 
daceman63 said:
That is our defense of our gun rights. The mere fact that they are targeting legal gun owners will do nothing to reduce crime as we are not the ones committing those crimes. On top of that the majority of gun crime is related to drugs. We need to be more vocal in the media to get those points across.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.....
Click to expand...

I guess that is the problem, we're not vocal enough outside our own community and the only voices out there are the ones of the Anti's. Perhaps GOAL and the NRA and the likes should stand up and publically support the Brady camp and the likes and say Yes we want to get Illigal guns off teh streets and yes we want to get guns out of the hands of criminals we support your cause (or at least your publically stated cause). The anti's are screaming violence and crime and gun violence and gun crime and all we do is scream "2nd ammendment don't take my guns". They're offereing the only solution and the solution won't solve the problem, we know it, but the rest of the population doesn't know the difference between a leagal gun and an illeagal gun, a gun is a gun to them.
 
csharpdev said:
I guess that is the problem, we're not vocal enough outside our own community and the only voices out there are the ones of the Anti's. Perhaps GOAL and the NRA and the likes should stand up and publically support the Brady camp and the likes and say Yes we want to get Illigal guns off teh streets and yes we want to get guns out of the hands of criminals we support your cause (or at least your publically stated cause). The anti's are screaming violence and crime and gun violence and gun crime and all we do is scream "2nd ammendment don't take my guns". They're offereing the only solution and the solution won't solve the problem, we know it, but the rest of the population doesn't know the difference between a leagal gun and an illeagal gun, a gun is a gun to them.
Click to expand...

This is so true. That's because the anti's want the rest of the population to think that way and you are right again when you say there is nobody to speak up. I would do it but I'm nto great at public speaking. I would do more to hurt the cause if i got up in front of a crowd. But I'm sure there are poeple out here who have that skill.....I wish I did.
 
Just like everyone else here I'm unhappy with the election results and agree that more gun laws are really only going to penalizing us legal gun owners.

I don't want totally derail this thread, but I'm really naive when it comes to how illegal guns make there way on to the streets and into the hands of these thugs. Are they stealing them from lawful owners? Straw purchases?
 
csharpdev said:
... the rest of the population doesn't know the difference between a leagal gun and an illeagal gun, a gun is a gun to them.
Click to expand...

I didn't know the guns were or were not following laws. I thought it was just a gun and PEOPLE are possessing them either legally or illegally. Am I wrong?
 
v13, it is mostly by theft that they get their guns. There are some straw purchases, but statistically I'll bet the number is very small %-wise.
 
I posted this in a previous thread. It's an interesting read, downloadable as a pdf, and is completely footnoted and documented. It really does a job on de-bunking the benefits of the extreme attitude and actions of our Draconian laws. Do with it as you will.

http://www.gunfacts.info




Edited to add: Your server clock is 4hrs. fast and is messing up post times, you may want to reset-it.
 
Last edited:
If you live in Massachusetts and own a gun, you just gotta join GOAL. If you're already a GOAL member, the time is now to make another donation.

It's going to take a lot of money and a lot of effort to combat the new firearms restrictions that are guaranteed to be coming our way.
 
Coyote33 said:
I didn't know the guns were or were not following laws. I thought it was just a gun and PEOPLE are possessing them either legally or illegally. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Although one could argue that a non Mass Complient gun is illegal, but that's not what I ment.

Possession by someone who can't lawfully possess the gun is illegal, those are the guns we need to get rid of. Maybe I should rephrase and say that they don't know the different between legal possession and illegal possession and it's the guns that are illegally possessed that they need to go after.

Part of the problem is they don't see the difference between Joe LTC and Joe Thug. I have friends who are anti's and they think it's ok that I have them locked up in a gun safe (that took awhile), but they don't think they should ever come out except MAYBE to go to the range (and even that's a stretch).
 
Taipan01 said:
Edited to add: Your server clock is 4hrs. fast and is messing up post times, you may want to reset-it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong answer!! YOU have your User CP set to GMT, so unless you are located in London, it's your user settings that are wrong. The server is fine. As a Mod, I can see what your settings are, but I can not change them for you, so you'll have to do that yourself . . . I also have no idea where you are located, so we can't "ass-u-me" to know what your time setting should be.
 
csharpdev said:
Possession by someone who can't lawfully possess the gun is illegal, those are the guns we need to get rid of.
Click to expand...

I'll argue that the vast majority of so called "illegal" guns are owned by otherwise law abiding citizens who inadvertently became criminals in 1998 when their "Valid For Life" FID card became a useless piece of paper.

Many, many people did not reapply for the one of the "new" licenses because they didn't know they had to, seldom if ever go shooting, and/or never take that old .22 rifle, Grandpa's 12 gauge shotgun, or the old Model 10 revolver out of the closet/attic/nightstand.

I had octogenarian aunts that were lawbreakers simply because they still had their late husbands' hunting rifle somewhere in the house, and they were afraid to do anything with it. A woman I once worked with buried (yes buried) a vintage engraved Browning Citori that belonged to her ex in her backyard because she didn't know what else to do. By the time I found out about it and convinced her to let me dig it up, it was a rusted piece of worthless junk.

I would love to get truthful answers to the following questions:
  1. How many people that used guns in crimes in this state were properly licensed?
  2. For the criminals that were not properly licensed, in which state did the gun used in the crime originate?
  3. How many straw purchases of multiple guns are estimated to occur in Mass? How many straw purchasers were apprehended? If there's a big disparity in the estimated number of straw purchases vs. arrests for same, what is the plan for better enforcement?
  4. How many so called "assault rifles" were used in crimes in the Commonwealth?
  5. How many .50 BMG rifles have been used in crimes in the Commonwealth?
  6. What would be the cost to administer a "one gun per month" law, and how many full time investigators could they hire with the same amount of money? Which one would reduce "gun crime" more?

Here's what I think the answers would be (pure speculation on my part):
  1. Less than 10%.
  2. Likely not Mass. There are fewer gun owners in Mass than in most other states. If we assume a constant percentage of thefts, then less guns are stolen in Mass than in other states. Also, because of the limitations on guns that dealers are allowed to transfer in Mass, the prices for handguns in Mass are higher than other states. The motive for straw purchases of armloads of guns is profit. An gun runner stands to make much more profit buying the guns outside of Mass (or NYC or California) and selling them where they can get the most money.
  3. Very few, and hardly any (less than 5 per year), with no plan for better enforcement.
  4. Less than 10.
  5. None.
  6. Wild guess? Ten Million dollars. With that kind of coin, they could hire over 100 investigators to track down the sources of "gun crime" without making any new laws.

Notice that I did not use thew term "illegal guns" in my questions/answers above. That's because there is no such thing - an inanimate object cannot commit a crime.

More laws are not the answer, better enforncement of the existing laws is the only way to reduce crime. Straw purchases are already against the law. In addition to being a bureaucratic quagmire, a "one gun per month" law is a lazy attempt to avoid enforcing the current law. Also, banning guns that are not being used in crimes will do nothing to reduce crime.

Laws don't deter criminals; because criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. That's how they become criminals. It won't help to make something "more illegal".

The additional laws that they're propsing remind me of a story:

A cop said to a politician, "Did you hear about the guy we arrested driving 100 MPH down Commonwealth Ave?"

The politician asked, "Isn't the speed limit 25 on Comm Ave?"

The cop replied, "Yes it is."

The politician said, "Well then, we need to change the speed limit to 15 MPH to keep this from happening again."


That pretty much sums up the philosophy of our legislators when it comes to gun laws in the Commonwealth.
 
Last edited:
LenS said:
Sorry, wrong answer!! YOU have your User CP set to GMT, so unless you are located in London, it's your user settings that are wrong. The server is fine. As a Mod, I can see what your settings are, but I can not change them for you, so you'll have to do that yourself . . . I also have no idea where you are located, so we can't "ass-u-me" to know what your time setting should be.
Click to expand...

GEE, THANKS LEN FOR THE RIGHT ANSWER!!!!!!!!.

For Eddie Coyle: If you go up a couple of places you will see a link in my last post, it may not answer your exact questions but it should help out in a general way.
 
Last edited:
This is probably wishfull thinking on my part. But to the average voter, the gun issue never really came into play. They were just "enthralled" with Patrick and disliked Healy for her alledged "negative campaigning" (don't tell me the truth about the opposition, I'd rather be niavette and PC). Sarah Brady and her Brady Bunch are quick to jump in wherever they can turn it to their advantage. Patrick only stance was "one gun a month" (gee, I'll have to increase my purchases), and illegal guns from surrounding states. People who jump on Sarahs band wagon have a tendency to find new employment (Weld, Harshbarger, etc. ad naseum). So, I'll let my GOAL keep an eye on things in the state house and hope (pray) they have other fish to fry rather than wasting time with useless (proven useless) gun laws. I figure that now they have the key to the cash box, they'll be too busy robbing the till.[crying]
 
John2 said:
This is probably wishfull thinking on my part. But to the average voter, the gun issue never really came into play. They were just "enthralled" with Patrick and disliked Healy for her alledged "negative campaigning"
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. I emailed several democratic candidates here in NH and found general support for gun laws as they currently exist. I'm not 100% convinced that a big change in federal gun laws is in the cards. JMHO, and I've been wrong before. [wink]
 
Maui19 said:
I'm not 100% convinced that a big change in federal gun laws is in the cards. JMHO, and I've been wrong before. [wink]
Click to expand...

Certainly not right away at any rate. First, a lot of the newly elected Democrats come from conservative areas and ran as conservative Democrats. Second, gun control, specifically the AWB cost the Democrats the House in 1994 and they probably won't forget that. Just as Social Security reform is a third rail issues for the Republicans, Gun Control is for the Democrats.

Gary
 
do you really think they just disliked her negative campaigning or do you think it was an anti-republican vote because of bush or do you think they disliked her for her association with Romney?

I originally thought it was because of Romney and I still think that was part of it but I mostly think it was all the negative press on Bush for Iraq and it was more anti-republican.

I can't imagine anyone in their right mind voting for Patrick with his tax proposal and his pro-illegal immigrant stance.
 
I think she just ran an inept campaign. The negative ads were devastating early on and Patrick's lead almost evaporated. But then, she had nothing positive to say when the negative ads kept working. Plus, Patrick didn't go negative, which played well.

Exit polling shows that nationwide corruption was the #1 issue, terrorism #2, the economy, despite it being very strong #3, and Iraq #4.

About Iraq, I think that people want a change in strategy and tactics, but not the overall objective.

Gary
 
csharpdev said:
Possession by someone who can't lawfully possess the gun is illegal, those are the guns we need to get rid of. Maybe I should rephrase and say that they don't know the different between legal possession and illegal possession and it's the guns that are illegally possessed that they need to go after.
Click to expand...

How about, instead of "going after the guns" that the system should go
after the criminals that are carrying them? The guns themselves are
not the problem. It's the criminals who misuse them for their own gains,
and often times these criminals were previously thrown in jail for a so
called "gun crime" only to be given a chinsey sentence and let out a
few months or a year later.

Guns do not need to be criminalized, the ACTUAL crime needs to be punished
appropriately, instead. There should be no such thing as a "gun
crime" to begin with. Why is someone who murders someone with a knife
less of a criminal than someone who murders someone with a gun? I
never understood this BS. There shouldn't be a difference.

Laws which add extra penalties for using a gun are braindead in the same
manner as laws governing "hate crimes" and the like. I never understood
their purpouse. They should have just made the penalty higher to
begin with. A criminal who beats a guy to a pulp for drug money should
not get a lesser sentence than one who beats somone to a pulp because of
their race, color, or sexual orientation.


-Mike
 
daceman63 said:
This is so true. That's because the anti's want the rest of the population to think that way and you are right again when you say there is nobody to speak up. I would do it but I'm nto great at public speaking. I would do more to hurt the cause if i got up in front of a crowd. But I'm sure there are poeple out here who have that skill.....I wish I did.
Click to expand...


I do (have that skill). When and where do we get started? I'm dead serious about this. Let's get started. I propose a NES meeting asap where we can brainstorm and attempt to make a difference. If we proceed logically and with a solid plan, we can do this. Please respond or PM me.
 
Ya know...one thing that does carry weight is when "a voice" comes from organized groups, i.e., "I'm a member of Northeast Shooters." or letter is signed by President, V.P., Sec., etc. of said group.

I DO NOT want to step on your toes Derek, so I'm not suggesting that we become an active legislative group, however, if a group is formed, and communications are sent, having a group name carries more weight than just from Joe Smith, anytown, MA.
 
LenS said:
Sorry, wrong answer!! YOU have your User CP set to GMT, so unless you are located in London, it's your user settings that are wrong. The server is fine. As a Mod, I can see what your settings are, but I can not change them for you, so you'll have to do that yourself . . . I also have no idea where you are located, so we can't "ass-u-me" to know what your time setting should be.
Click to expand...

For those with "clock issues", try this:
Simply put, Dimension 4 v5.0 is the fastest and easiest way to synchronize your PC's clock for Windows-based operating systems.
 

Similar threads

New Sig Ad has the gun grabbers in a tizzy
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
not indicted.......2yrs later, indicted
Replies
5
Views
436
LakeTrout
L
Finland Goes Pro-Gun
2
Replies
36
Views
905
Picton
Picton
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
674
chris_1001
chris_1001
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
Back
Top Bottom