-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Menino on FOX25 this morning
- Thread starter ChargingCharlie
- Start date
Well, it's always been that way. The imaginary "gun show loophole" is always targeted because the antis feel as though they can use it to get some centrists, fudds, etc, to "suck" for their position by deluding them into believing it's a "common sense" idea or some garbage like that. Antis love that topic because they know its the only chance they have at pandering to the middle. It also only (directly, at least) affects part of gun owners as a group, so their feeling also is that they can get joe fudd to turn against those who wish to sell guns privately.
-Mike
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,791
- Likes
- 3,117
We need to close the clown show loophole - it's responsible for the thousands of libtards loose on the streets, killing our children's futures. It's a common sense measure that I think both sides can agree on - it will take media exposure and influence away from those intending to do harm while hiding their heads deep up their ass without unduly restricting the rights of those who DID NOT clearly grow up mistaking lead paint chips for Frosted Flakes.
Lip
Army Veteran
Boston will just look long and hard for someone dumber than mumbles that's all.
What should we do? Give them a f-ing PRIZE? I mean aside from welfare, food stamps, free health care, a new car...
fencer
NES Member
Who the hell buys guns at Gunshows anyway? I have never seen what I would consider to be a good deal on a gun at a Gunshow. At least not on a new gun. Ammo and accessories maybe.
And they are always the same vendors and they bring the same guns.
And what friggin loopholes are they talking about? Everytime I have been at a show I had to give the vendor my LTC to look at a gun just like everywhere else in Mass.
I think if they knew how many guns were actually sold at local gunshows the would say " Oh. nevermind"
Maybe I just have not been to the right shows. I would like to see more gunshows with more vendors and a better selection. We need an NES sponsored gun show.
And they are always the same vendors and they bring the same guns.
And what friggin loopholes are they talking about? Everytime I have been at a show I had to give the vendor my LTC to look at a gun just like everywhere else in Mass.
I think if they knew how many guns were actually sold at local gunshows the would say " Oh. nevermind"
Maybe I just have not been to the right shows. I would like to see more gunshows with more vendors and a better selection. We need an NES sponsored gun show.
Last edited:
namedpipes
NES Member
Seriously why the $$k is such an idiot elected to office? Glad I'm outside the city.
I can't figure it out, either. The man is a moron.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 3,864
- Likes
- 1,058
What did he apologize for, and what did he actually say?
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
While i agree to the basic overall arguement i for one would like to see them enforce some of the laws on the books already .
Prime Example if your caught with a Handgun without a license your supposed to go to jail for one year , no deals no reduced sentence just haul your ass off to jail.
How often is this charged dropped or plea bargained away?
Send em to jail everytime you catch them with an illegal handgun and maybe just maybe they wont do it again or at all .
One year Mandatory would have an effect on crime . But idiots like Menino are stupid to realize this.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
That one is the most egregious of them all.
So let me get this straight you have a problem with putting away a criminal who was caught with an illegal handgun ? This law in no way effects LEGAL gun owners at all and yet you have a problem with it ? If you cant get a LTC because your a criminal thats a good thing or so i thought , so if your caught with an illegal handgun i guess we should let them go . OH wait thats what they do now . Nevermind
The point is, I think, that unlicensed possession of a firearm (guns themselves aren't 'illegal') is a malum prohibitum offense. Possessing a firearm without a license is only wrong because the state has decided it is. It's not like murder, theft, or assault which are all wrong because, well, they're just WRONG. That's a BIG difference. I'd argue that mere possession of a firearms without out a license is at best a civil offense, like driving without a license.
The problem is we've all become conditioned to focusing on that license for legitimacy and to see unlicensed gun possession as a 'crime'. We need to start bifurcating these so-called 'gun crimes' into those that are wrong because they're wrong and those that simply fail to align with the government's administrative scheme.
ND: Extend that 'mere' possession to a prohibited person, and of course you're talking about an entirely different situation.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,254
- Likes
- 146
Wow...you've been listening to the antis again, haven't you? Contrary to what Mike Bloomberg and Mumbles Menino would like you to believe there is no such thing as an "illegal handgun". IMO, no person (even ex-cons) should be prohibited from carrying a handgun for self defense unless they have a violent past...and I'm even on the fence about denying those people the right. The bottom line is that the ONLY thing that should be illegal, with regards to guns, is using them to commit a crime or to threaten or instill fear into others. Last I heard, ex-cons can still possess cars, chainsaws, and kitchen knives...all deadly weapons.
MY point is it becomes an Illegal Handgun in the possesion of criminals,(gangbangers ,felons,rapists,ex-cons ect ect ect ) and they do not enforce the law .
Im not talking about possesion of a handgun by someone who can legally own one.
Also i do not feel a law abiding person should even need a LTC but unfortunately in this state its mandatory.
Constantly you hear about driveby shootings everyone knows that those are not legally owned firearms.
So instead of making new laws that effect law abiding gun owners just enforce the laws as they are.
Im not talking about possesion of a handgun by someone who can legally own one.
Also i do not feel a law abiding person should even need a LTC but unfortunately in this state its mandatory.
Constantly you hear about driveby shootings everyone knows that those are not legally owned firearms.
So instead of making new laws that effect law abiding gun owners just enforce the laws as they are.
What's a legally owned firearm? A stolen gun is illegal, obviously, because it's someone else's property.
Beyond that "legally owned firearm" is a bulls**t concept, at least as far as the constitution is concerned. BTW, in MA registration isn't compulsory, so you can't use that as an argument as to what constitutes a "legal" or "illegal" firearm, either.
BTW the law you are bitching about, Bartley-Fox, is never enforced because there is a legal mechanics obstruction that prevents it from being used. If a prosecutor wants to nail someone with BF, they can't push charges on anything like assault with a deadly weapon, etc, because apparently MA has a "rule" that sentences cannot be served concurrently in state prison and then a house of corrections. (BF mandates 1 yr in a jail or house of corrections, not a state prison).
Basically, Bartley Fox can only ever be used against people whose only crime is having a firearm without a license- so BF is basically designed to put grandma in jail for inhereting her late husband's revolver and not getting licensed. As a law it is pure s**t.
-Mike
I never mentioned registration i stated LTC which is needed if you want to own pistols in Mass. or a Fid for long guns. Both of which i think is bull but what can i do . The fact of the matter is rarely if ever does a criminal do time for posession of a firearm and thats the part of the system that is severly flawed.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
View attachment 18953 I'm so, so, so done.
Lip
Army Veteran
I have no problem with ex cons losing their 2a rights, with the current recidivism rates society needs some form of protection from them.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,254
- Likes
- 146
You realize that anyone that has a felony loses their 2A rights, and you're ok with that? Think of it this way...some woman gets busted for downloading music or a movie and is charged and found guilty for doing something she didn't thing was a big deal and she now can't legally arm herself. Some stupid 18 year old mugs someone or gets arrested for a DUI and loses his 2A rights for the rest of his life. I'm the first person to tell people I know that they are a dumbass if they do something wrong, but I also don't believe that 2A rights should be stripped for life for most offenses. I can see it being stripped for violent offenses with a firearm since they showed their lack of control with one already though.
Lip
Army Veteran
Yep I have no problem with this, your point is what? Last time I checked the 18 year old mugger is why some carry. Oh and I have lost a member of my family to a drunkard, a dui is no excuse.
Similar threads
