Live from the Rally

[glide]

So you believe the MSM and trust them to print a retraction? LOL

I have a job also but I took a vacation day to be at the rally. If you don't like GOAL, that's your prerogative but attributing falsehoods to them isn't helping anyone. The simple fact is if you live in MA and own guns, they're helping you whether you like it or not.

Compromise does not help.
They can't effectively lobby for anything because they don't have the members, the money or the organization.

It's right there in black and white. If its not true and Jim didn't say it, the very least we should expect is him letting that fact be known on their website or in the Friday email. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to clear the air.

I live on MA, am a gun owner, and the only ones who help me in any way are Comm2A.

- - - Updated - - -

Jim Wallace was talking about you at the rally. He commented on "slactivists", those who comment on the Internet, but never show up in person when there is a rally or something to be done. No wonder you don't like him.

Keep defending them and send in your donation. See where it gets you.

 

[Bob P]

Trolls and the care and feeding thereof.

 

[Garys]

Trolls and the care and feeding thereof.

'struth.

 

[jasons]

Like I said, I'll keep an eye out for the retraction tomorrow from the news outlet that printed details of their conversation with Jim.

Here's the article. So feel free to let me know how I'm off base here.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/21866959/2013/04/03/mass-gun-owners-rally-on-boston-common#ixzz2PQpS1vjY

And here is the relevant quote: a reprehensible position.

Wallace said he would consider backing Patrick's call for sharing mental health information with the federal government if the bill was rewritten to include only those people who had been determined by the courts to be a danger to themselves or others.

Such people are already prohibited persons under federal law (ever fill out a 4473?) and most likely aren't GOAL constituents anyway. Wallace goes on record saying that he disagrees (rightly) with the Governor's bill and suggests changes that would make it redundant and pointless. GOAL gives the other side no ground with this position while gaining credibility and potential support for the positions that can gain their constituents ground.

You have to pick the hill you want to die on. I'd be pretty pissed if he picked that one.

 

[Quiet]

...as we eat our own.

 

[jasons]

...as we eat our own.

Our own? what percentage of paying GOAL members do you think have been adjudicated mentally defective?

 

[flintoid]

Our own? what percentage of paying GOAL members do you think have been adjudicated mentally defective?

just re-read all of the stuff in this thread.

forget what I said. My concerns may pertain to future legislation which could, in turn, free more "mental health" information once we all hold hands and start skipping down this yellow brick road. But to those who have never been on anti-depressants, or been to the doctor for anything to do with their brain, or behavior, they could give less than two shits about stuff like this.

Being part of a "younger" generation who's "older" parents typically have defaulted to medication over parenting (not mine, but I have plenty of friends who have been through this), medical records being interpreted and shared for judgement IS NOT A GOOD THING.

You ****ers are old. I honestly believe that "mental health records" have no business in our judicial branch until crimes are committed. It should never be used for "preventative crime." This opens those doors.

 

[glide]

Wallace said he would consider backing Patrick's call for sharing mental health information with the federal government if the bill was rewritten to include only those people who had been determined by the courts to be a danger to themselves or others.

This is not trolling. This is the mouth piece of an organization you support saying he would be willing to share mental health info with the feds for people who have been determined BY THE COURTS to be a "danger".

There is ZERO excuse for this. I cannot believe anyone is defending this. It is an organization I am proud to NOT be associated with.

Time to wake up and stop drinking the kool-aid.

 

[blindfire]

The numbers are what we say they are. Those who seek to limit our civil rights have set the rules with this tactic. This war will be won in MSM and pop culture with good sound bites, not substance (sadly)

This is a PR campaign pure and simple. Logic simply does not apply to the masses. Feed them the right bs and they will eat it up.
My count btw was under 1k.
My 'official' count 2500.

Jim Wallace delivered one of the best lines of the day. Standing at the podium, he pulled out his phone, took a pic, and said "I need to see what a crowd of 50 people looks like" (paraphrase)

Sooo...there were 1,000,000 men at the "Million Man March"???

 

[M60]

I got there late and missed the speeches.

Considering that the rally was held in the middle of the week, I thought it was a very good turn out.

I also heard the mutant running by yelling about "killing more children", or some crap.

The only other negative comment (or counter protester), I caught was the clown yelling about "how was Dr.King killed"?

Other than that... the anti's were nowhere to be seen or heard.

Who was the ex Marine up on the steps rallying the crowd, I didn't catch his name?

ex Marine ! What's that ?

 

[jasons]

how about the ones that could be deemed mentally defective when medical records are passed onto the hands of those who govern your "rights" of being able to own firearms?

That's not the position that Wallace took. Assuming that he wasn't misquoted he was pretty specific that this hypothetical person would have already been found defective by a court. At that point the cat is already out of the bag and the person is already a PP.

 

[blindfire]

This is not trolling. This is the mouth piece of an organization you support saying he would be willing to share mental health info with the feds for people who have been determined BY THE COURTS to be a "danger".

There is ZERO excuse for this. I cannot believe anyone is defending this. It is an organization I am proud to NOT be associated with.

Time to wake up and stop drinking the kool-aid.

So, what organization do you support then? I have a feeling that any well organized gun rights group is willing to give this ground because, as others have said, the courts make the final decision on what a PP is via adjudication...not a doctor. The doctor's opinion is taken into consideration, but it is not the only deciding factor.

What do you propose to prevent someone who is mentally ill from getting fire arms? The honor system?

 

[flintoid]

That's not the position that Wallace took. Assuming that he wasn't misquoted he was pretty specific that this hypothetical person would have already been found defective by a court. At that point the cat is already out of the bag and the person is already a PP.

understood. Hence my edit on my post.

I still feel uncomfortable taking a step back on medical and mental health records. If it stinks like shit....

also- I don't know if it was this thread or another, but I fit under the jim wallace definition of activist + absent? He edited the post and I am disappoint. It was a good term.

I may complain a bit, but I have not attended a GOAL meeting to bitch about this. I need to change this, here.

 

[glide]

So, what organization do you support then? I have a feeling that any well organized gun rights group is willing to give this ground because, as others have said, the courts make the final decision on what a PP is via adjudication...not a doctor. The doctor's opinion is taken into consideration, but it is not the only deciding factor.

What do you propose to prevent someone who is mentally ill from getting fire arms? The honor system?

As I said before...Comm2A

As a firearms owner would you be willing to stand in front of a MA judge and let him decide if you are a danger to yourself or others? I am not.
You know what I would do about the mentally ill having access to guns? Nothing. I would rather have X whack jobs kill Y amount of people over the course of Z years than have my rights impacted by them or their actions.

No organization should be giving ANY ground PERIOD. Thats how we got into this mess.

 

[jasons]

just re-read all of the stuff in this thread.

forget what I said. My concerns may pertain to future legislation which could, in turn, free more "mental health" information once we all hold hands and start skipping down this yellow brick road. But to those who have never been on anti-depressants, or been to the doctor for anything to do with their brain, or behavior, they could give less than two shits about stuff like this.

Being part of a "younger" generation who's "older" parents typically have defaulted to medication over parenting (not mine, but I have plenty of friends who have been through this), medical records being interpreted and shared for judgement IS NOT A GOOD THING.

You ****ers are old. I honestly believe that "mental health records" have no business in our judicial branch until crimes are committed. It should never be used for "preventative crime." This opens those doors.

I agree, but GOAL's mission is not to advocate for patient rights. It's to advocate for gun owners. Federal PPs are not gun owners, at least not legally.

 

[glide]

I agree, but GOAL's mission is not to advocate for patient rights. It's to advocate for gun owners. Federal PPs are not gun owners, at least not legally.

If it's not his concern then why did Jim say it? Why does he want to give the impression that he is "giving" something to the Governor? To be disingenuous?

It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

The mental health issue is pandora's box. Open that and we will be destroyed.

 

[jasons]

As I said before...Comm2A

As a firearms owner would you be willing to stand in front of a MA judge and let him decide if you are a danger to yourself or others? I am not.
You know what I would do about the mentally ill having access to guns? Nothing. I would rather have X whack jobs kill Y amount of people over the course of Z years than have my rights impacted by them or their actions.

No organization should be giving ANY ground PERIOD. Thats how we got into this mess.

How does commenting on a hypothetical situation where someone would already be denied federally give up any ground? Maybe that's the part that I'm missing.

 

[flintoid]

I agree, but GOAL's mission is not to advocate for patient rights. It's to advocate for gun owners. Federal PPs are not gun owners, at least not legally.

The problem with health records is that it can lead to gun owners becoming PP's by letting this sort of shit be acceptable.

Let's just open it up for PP's mental health records. Ok. Well, now that this has been done, why not do everyone? It's not hurting anything and the status quo has been set, right? Right.

Then many are ****ed. Unless it's not YOUR guns, you support this behavior. Much like the Fudd and his Remington 870 Express. As long as it's not his.

How does commenting on a hypothetical situation where someone would already be denied federally give up any ground? Maybe that's the part that I'm missing.

status quo and a slippery slope of compromise. Get familiar with our health care system and let me know how you think integrating it's many data systems into our judicial branch will go smoothly. It'll be all or nothing. There will be no gate.

 

[glide]

How does commenting on a hypothetical situation where someone would already be denied federally give up any ground? Maybe that's the part that I'm missing.

Wallace said he would consider backing Patrick's call for sharing mental health information with the federal government if the bill was rewritten to include only those people who had been determined by the courts to be a danger to themselves or others.

The "if" implies he is willing to cave.

If Jim is in the business of commenting on hypothetical situations in which GOAL are not involved; why the hell is he doing it? Did he simply put his foot in his mouth, or is he just the worst spokesman ever?

 

[jasons]

If it's not his concern then why did Jim say it? Why does he want to give the impression that he is "giving" something to the Governor? To be disingenuous?

It's absolutely ridiculous.

Because by reframing the debate to fit his (our) agenda he avoids that issue all together and shift focus to the ones that actually matter. It's a bit of political two-step, which I agree feels a bit gross, but it's good strategy. In short, it's good politics (if there is such a thing.)

 

[M60]

Thank you! I tamed down the tune a bit as I was trying to keep the speech short last night. So if I understand you correctly, the Lexington event I should come out swinging?

I already got my first NICS delay: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/general-discussion/200997-nics-check-delayed.html The delay was straighten out yesterday. Pretty sure I'm climbing up the 'list', you know.

It was good to shake your hand again today. When in Lexington, let go both barrels regarding the square incident . You're the only person that we know, who first hand has experienced a government out of control to that degree. This is good PR for the antis to hear. I'm certain that even the antis would rather carry than experience what you experienced. With a good sound system like the one you had today , the news stations would want to pick up what you have to offer to the cause. You are a tremendous wake up call for all to hear and you are being under utilised. They news stations should be notified in advance of who you are and what you message is so that they may plan fitting coverage. Remember, the media doesn't get this kind of opportunity often to begin with.Thank you for being there for us and for the cause.

 

[Amazon]

My husband and I were there. Both took vacation days. Have to admit, we both expected a bigger turn out. WTF people. 240k gun owners in the state...can't even get 1% ?

The speakers were great. Would have liked it if Jim talked about what GOAL was up to legislatively.

News coverage seems sketchy from what I've seen, but guess that's to be expected. Wish we gave them something to really pay attention to.

 

[blindfire]

As I said before...Comm2A

As a firearms owner would you be willing to stand in front of a MA judge and let him decide if you are a danger to yourself or others? I am not.
You know what I would do about the mentally ill having access to guns? Nothing. I would rather have X whack jobs kill Y amount of people over the course of Z years than have my rights impacted by them or their actions.

No organization should be giving ANY ground PERIOD. Thats how we got into this mess.

Wow...ok. Sorry to say it, but you are the poster child that the anti's are looking for. They think ALL gun owners feel this way when many don't.

I would assume that you would be ok if in your equation one of the Ys happened to be your child or children at a school on on the playground or in the mall or wherever...somewhere where Mr. X decided he wanted to go kill people.

 

[jasons]

The problem with health records is that it can lead to gun owners becoming PP's by letting this sort of shit be acceptable.

Let's just open it up for PP's mental health records. Ok. Well, now that this has been done, why not do everyone? It's not hurting anything and the status quo has been set, right? Right.

Then many are ****ed. Unless it's not YOUR guns, you support this behavior. Much like the Fudd and his Remington 870 Express. As long as it's not his.

status quo and a slippery slope of compromise. Get familiar with our health care system and let me know how you think integrating it's many data systems into our judicial branch will go smoothly. It'll be all or nothing. There will be no gate.

I see your point, but I don't see it as a compromise. The Gov will never modify his bill to meet GOAL's criteria so it's academic. The response is a way to segue into a topic that actually does have the potential to impact GOAL's members. That's his job and that's what he gets paid to do.

Put another way, if he had used up his interview time to rail against the mental health system and lack of patient privacy instead of finding a way to advocate for the issues that actually matter to GOAL's members he wouldn't be doing his job. Those are important issues but they are way outside of GOAL's wheelhouse.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Wow...ok. Sorry to say it, but you are the poster child that the anti's are looking for. They think ALL gun owners feel this way when many don't.

I would assume that you would be ok if in your equation one of the Ys happened to be your child or children at a school on on the playground or in the mall or wherever...somewhere where Mr. X decided he wanted to go kill people.

+1

 

[Quiet]

My husband and I were there. Both took vacation days. Have to admit, we both expected a bigger turn out. WTF people. 240k gun owners in the state...can't even get 1% ?

Well, maybe if it wasn't scheduled for a work day and a day when there was a right-wing radio show rally 8 miles away scheduled for the exact same hours.

 

[flintoid]

I see your point, but I don't see it as a compromise. The Gov will never modify his bill to meet GOAL's criteria so it's academic. The response is a way to segue into a topic that actually does have the potential to impact GOAL's members. That's his job and that's what he gets paid to do.

Put another way, if he had used up his interview time to rail against the mental health system and lack of patient privacy instead of finding a way to advocate for the issues that actually matter to GOAL's members he wouldn't be doing his job. Those are important issues but they are way outside of GOAL's wheelhouse.

I see your point.

Well, maybe if it wasn't scheduled for a work day and a day when there was a right-wing radio show rally 8 miles away scheduled for the exact same hours.

obligations, etc. are still excuses. I am guilty here as well. Do something else like send a few letters that you wouldn't have in order to "make up" for the excuses that kept you away.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Wow...ok. Sorry to say it, but you are the poster child that the anti's are looking for. They think ALL gun owners feel this way when many don't.

I would assume that you would be ok if in your equation one of the Ys happened to be your child or children at a school on on the playground or in the mall or wherever...somewhere where Mr. X decided he wanted to go kill people.

What if you become a Y, because someone thought you were an X, you have your rights stripped from you and are unable to defend yourself. Trading essential liberty for temoprary safety again.
Allowing .gov into medical records is a dangerous slippery slope and another backdoor to confiscation.

 

[GunGrey]

I see your point.



obligations, etc. are still excuses. I am guilty here as well. Do something else like send a few letters that you wouldn't have in order to "make up" for the excuses that kept you away.

yup