Out of State purchase of ammo

I'd stick my neck out say he's Class 1. He wants to be Gov. He's going to toe the party line and pander to every inner city group to garner votes. His campaign will feed on the "fears" of inner city violence. And what better cause to take up than the banning of the 2nd Amendment.
 
I'd stick my neck out say he's Class 1. He wants to be Gov. He's going to toe the party line and pander to every inner city group to garner votes. His campaign will feed on the "fears" of inner city violence. And what better cause to take up than the banning of the 2nd Amendment.
 
RKG said:
1. You may be right.

2. If I can arrange it, maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion. Though, if you accept my people classification system and your premise that Tom is Class 1, it would be a waste of gas.

You seemed to think that he wasn't Class 1. If you are buds and you ask him to go shooting with you, that will tell who is right. If he's "trainable" you might do some serious good for the cause. If he recoils in terror, at least we'll know where we stand (no worse than now).
 
RKG said:
1. You may be right.

2. If I can arrange it, maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion. Though, if you accept my people classification system and your premise that Tom is Class 1, it would be a waste of gas.

You seemed to think that he wasn't Class 1. If you are buds and you ask him to go shooting with you, that will tell who is right. If he's "trainable" you might do some serious good for the cause. If he recoils in terror, at least we'll know where we stand (no worse than now).
 
RKG said:
1. You may be right.

2. If I can arrange it, maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion. Though, if you accept my people classification system and your premise that Tom is Class 1, it would be a waste of gas.

You seemed to think that he wasn't Class 1. If you are buds and you ask him to go shooting with you, that will tell who is right. If he's "trainable" you might do some serious good for the cause. If he recoils in terror, at least we'll know where we stand (no worse than now).
 
I'd add one more group of people to the list, let's call then Class 0. They may be neutral, or pro, or anti, but none of that really matters. They's got an overriding goal (or office) in mind whenever they make any decision. If they think (or their advisors tell them) that acting fanatically anti-gun will help them move towards that goal, then that's what they'll do, regardless of what they actually think or believe. Unfortunately, the electoral system tends to ensure that this sort is overrepresented among politicians relative to the general population.

Ken
 
I'd add one more group of people to the list, let's call then Class 0. They may be neutral, or pro, or anti, but none of that really matters. They's got an overriding goal (or office) in mind whenever they make any decision. If they think (or their advisors tell them) that acting fanatically anti-gun will help them move towards that goal, then that's what they'll do, regardless of what they actually think or believe. Unfortunately, the electoral system tends to ensure that this sort is overrepresented among politicians relative to the general population.

Ken
 
I'd add one more group of people to the list, let's call then Class 0. They may be neutral, or pro, or anti, but none of that really matters. They's got an overriding goal (or office) in mind whenever they make any decision. If they think (or their advisors tell them) that acting fanatically anti-gun will help them move towards that goal, then that's what they'll do, regardless of what they actually think or believe. Unfortunately, the electoral system tends to ensure that this sort is overrepresented among politicians relative to the general population.

Ken
 
Lynne said:
IIRC, our former leader at GOAL invited our AG to go shooting with him. He didn't take him up on the offer.

Can't really say that I blame him for that...

I mean, good natured or not. If someone that I've been fighting over regs and the like with asked me to go to a secluded club with guns.... [shock]
 
Lynne said:
IIRC, our former leader at GOAL invited our AG to go shooting with him. He didn't take him up on the offer.

Can't really say that I blame him for that...

I mean, good natured or not. If someone that I've been fighting over regs and the like with asked me to go to a secluded club with guns.... [shock]
 
Lynne said:
IIRC, our former leader at GOAL invited our AG to go shooting with him. He didn't take him up on the offer.

Can't really say that I blame him for that...

I mean, good natured or not. If someone that I've been fighting over regs and the like with asked me to go to a secluded club with guns.... [shock]
 
Lynne said:
IIRC, our former leader at GOAL invited our AG to go shooting with him. He didn't take him up on the offer.

A lot of people didn't relate well with Mike. I know precisely why that is the case and that is the reason why I liked Mike as much as I did.

Also, if he had taken Mike up on the offer, it would have been "public" and caused political repercussions for him. Going shooting with a buddy is very different.

I took an anti (not fanatical) politician shooting one time, it was just he and I and he commented about "what if ... saw me here" to me. No cameras, no evidence of the "crime". He was and still is someone I consider as a good friend, even if he is a politician and I don't agree with many of his positions. He always listened to what I had to say and I accidentally became the catalyst one day for a fruitful conversation between him and Mike . . . and this was after each of them had told me that the two of them couldn't talk to one another. It was awesome to watch and I didn't dare leave his office for fear that the old war would break out if I did. Boy was my Wife pissed when I was >1 hour late to meet up with her (no cell phones back then either).
 
Lynne said:
IIRC, our former leader at GOAL invited our AG to go shooting with him. He didn't take him up on the offer.

A lot of people didn't relate well with Mike. I know precisely why that is the case and that is the reason why I liked Mike as much as I did.

Also, if he had taken Mike up on the offer, it would have been "public" and caused political repercussions for him. Going shooting with a buddy is very different.

I took an anti (not fanatical) politician shooting one time, it was just he and I and he commented about "what if ... saw me here" to me. No cameras, no evidence of the "crime". He was and still is someone I consider as a good friend, even if he is a politician and I don't agree with many of his positions. He always listened to what I had to say and I accidentally became the catalyst one day for a fruitful conversation between him and Mike . . . and this was after each of them had told me that the two of them couldn't talk to one another. It was awesome to watch and I didn't dare leave his office for fear that the old war would break out if I did. Boy was my Wife pissed when I was >1 hour late to meet up with her (no cell phones back then either).
 
Lynne said:
IIRC, our former leader at GOAL invited our AG to go shooting with him. He didn't take him up on the offer.

A lot of people didn't relate well with Mike. I know precisely why that is the case and that is the reason why I liked Mike as much as I did.

Also, if he had taken Mike up on the offer, it would have been "public" and caused political repercussions for him. Going shooting with a buddy is very different.

I took an anti (not fanatical) politician shooting one time, it was just he and I and he commented about "what if ... saw me here" to me. No cameras, no evidence of the "crime". He was and still is someone I consider as a good friend, even if he is a politician and I don't agree with many of his positions. He always listened to what I had to say and I accidentally became the catalyst one day for a fruitful conversation between him and Mike . . . and this was after each of them had told me that the two of them couldn't talk to one another. It was awesome to watch and I didn't dare leave his office for fear that the old war would break out if I did. Boy was my Wife pissed when I was >1 hour late to meet up with her (no cell phones back then either).
 
KMaurer said:
I'd add one more group of people to the list, let's call then Class 0. They may be neutral, or pro, or anti, but none of that really matters. They's got an overriding goal (or office) in mind whenever they make any decision. If they think (or their advisors tell them) that acting fanatically anti-gun will help them move towards that goal, then that's what they'll do, regardless of what they actually think or believe. Unfortunately, the electoral system tends to ensure that this sort is overrepresented among politicians relative to the general population.

Ken

And that's the group to really watch. NEVER trust them.
 
KMaurer said:
I'd add one more group of people to the list, let's call then Class 0. They may be neutral, or pro, or anti, but none of that really matters. They's got an overriding goal (or office) in mind whenever they make any decision. If they think (or their advisors tell them) that acting fanatically anti-gun will help them move towards that goal, then that's what they'll do, regardless of what they actually think or believe. Unfortunately, the electoral system tends to ensure that this sort is overrepresented among politicians relative to the general population.

Ken

And that's the group to really watch. NEVER trust them.
 
KMaurer said:
I'd add one more group of people to the list, let's call then Class 0. They may be neutral, or pro, or anti, but none of that really matters. They's got an overriding goal (or office) in mind whenever they make any decision. If they think (or their advisors tell them) that acting fanatically anti-gun will help them move towards that goal, then that's what they'll do, regardless of what they actually think or believe. Unfortunately, the electoral system tends to ensure that this sort is overrepresented among politicians relative to the general population.

Ken

And that's the group to really watch. NEVER trust them.
 
Brother Maurer has an interesting point. He posits a class of people who have no opinion -- who arguably lack the capacity independently to form any opinion -- on the subject, but who simply flock to the perceived plurality of the poll. You might call this Class P, as the common term to describe this class is "politician." (They are also sometimes known as "soul discounters," since they will sell their own for a very low price.)

Obviously, there is only one way to address a Class P person: with poll numbers. Otherwise, they are immune to logical arguments, intellectual embarassment, or anything else. This class doesn't really fit on my sliding scale, since a Class P will change his position just as often and as quickly as the polls appear to change.

I can certify that, at least until after his first election as Attorney General, Tom Reilly was not in Class P. In fact, one of the reservations that some of his advisors had when he announced for Attorney General was that he was insufficiently a politician. Whether time in grade has turned him into a politician is something I do not know.

(Should anyone care, Tom Reilly was a superb District Attorney, a man in the tradition of Gary Byrne, John Droney or Frank Hogan. Decisions were made on the basis of the law and the facts, with no favoritism or prejudice for or against anyone. He played no games, and his people knew that playing games would not be tolerated in his office. Now, I recognize that this is for naught if, in fact, he has since become an anti-gun politician, but it is a fact nonetheless.)

I should add: I read the material to which you directed me, Len, and it was quite informative. I'm surprised that no one ever took this material to Tom Finneran when he was Speaker, or that if they did, that nothing came of it.
 
Brother Maurer has an interesting point. He posits a class of people who have no opinion -- who arguably lack the capacity independently to form any opinion -- on the subject, but who simply flock to the perceived plurality of the poll. You might call this Class P, as the common term to describe this class is "politician." (They are also sometimes known as "soul discounters," since they will sell their own for a very low price.)

Obviously, there is only one way to address a Class P person: with poll numbers. Otherwise, they are immune to logical arguments, intellectual embarassment, or anything else. This class doesn't really fit on my sliding scale, since a Class P will change his position just as often and as quickly as the polls appear to change.

I can certify that, at least until after his first election as Attorney General, Tom Reilly was not in Class P. In fact, one of the reservations that some of his advisors had when he announced for Attorney General was that he was insufficiently a politician. Whether time in grade has turned him into a politician is something I do not know.

(Should anyone care, Tom Reilly was a superb District Attorney, a man in the tradition of Gary Byrne, John Droney or Frank Hogan. Decisions were made on the basis of the law and the facts, with no favoritism or prejudice for or against anyone. He played no games, and his people knew that playing games would not be tolerated in his office. Now, I recognize that this is for naught if, in fact, he has since become an anti-gun politician, but it is a fact nonetheless.)

I should add: I read the material to which you directed me, Len, and it was quite informative. I'm surprised that no one ever took this material to Tom Finneran when he was Speaker, or that if they did, that nothing came of it.
 
Brother Maurer has an interesting point. He posits a class of people who have no opinion -- who arguably lack the capacity independently to form any opinion -- on the subject, but who simply flock to the perceived plurality of the poll. You might call this Class P, as the common term to describe this class is "politician." (They are also sometimes known as "soul discounters," since they will sell their own for a very low price.)

Obviously, there is only one way to address a Class P person: with poll numbers. Otherwise, they are immune to logical arguments, intellectual embarassment, or anything else. This class doesn't really fit on my sliding scale, since a Class P will change his position just as often and as quickly as the polls appear to change.

I can certify that, at least until after his first election as Attorney General, Tom Reilly was not in Class P. In fact, one of the reservations that some of his advisors had when he announced for Attorney General was that he was insufficiently a politician. Whether time in grade has turned him into a politician is something I do not know.

(Should anyone care, Tom Reilly was a superb District Attorney, a man in the tradition of Gary Byrne, John Droney or Frank Hogan. Decisions were made on the basis of the law and the facts, with no favoritism or prejudice for or against anyone. He played no games, and his people knew that playing games would not be tolerated in his office. Now, I recognize that this is for naught if, in fact, he has since become an anti-gun politician, but it is a fact nonetheless.)

I should add: I read the material to which you directed me, Len, and it was quite informative. I'm surprised that no one ever took this material to Tom Finneran when he was Speaker, or that if they did, that nothing came of it.
 
RKG,

I've witnessed some Class P behavior in some politicians that I've known before and during their political career. You do not see this when you are talking one-on-one with them in a non-political arena, but visit them in their office or in a public setting and you can see it in action.

Tom Finneran is NO friend of the gun owner! None of the leadership has been in the 25+ years that I've been actively involved with GOAL and gun legislation.
 
RKG,

I've witnessed some Class P behavior in some politicians that I've known before and during their political career. You do not see this when you are talking one-on-one with them in a non-political arena, but visit them in their office or in a public setting and you can see it in action.

Tom Finneran is NO friend of the gun owner! None of the leadership has been in the 25+ years that I've been actively involved with GOAL and gun legislation.
 
RKG,

I've witnessed some Class P behavior in some politicians that I've known before and during their political career. You do not see this when you are talking one-on-one with them in a non-political arena, but visit them in their office or in a public setting and you can see it in action.

Tom Finneran is NO friend of the gun owner! None of the leadership has been in the 25+ years that I've been actively involved with GOAL and gun legislation.
 
I took some time today to send off my C&R FFL to a few (very few) suppliers. I decided to call Natchez to see if they gave a C&R FFL discount. Gentleman said no, so I asked him if that helped regarding what they would ship into MA. He said NO! They won't ship anything into MA or to a non-MA address if the billing address is MA! He said that they hung in there (shipping) until the AG sued Midway, then they decided to stop all shipments to MA.

Then he proceeded to tell me that someone from Dept of Homeland Security in MA called to place an order. Natchez told him "sorry, we can't ship to MA", so he asks if the order is put on DHS letterhead will they ship. Natchez's answer was NO! The DHS guy was perplexed and the Natchez person told him to take it up with Tom Reilly!! [evil]

In one way this is good, if serfs can't buy, neither should the lords of the land!

The person from Natchez was very nice, polite and apologetic. I can see their viewpoint, the cost of litigation just isn't worth it for the principle. The AG could easily bankrupt most of these vendors in litigation!
 
I took some time today to send off my C&R FFL to a few (very few) suppliers. I decided to call Natchez to see if they gave a C&R FFL discount. Gentleman said no, so I asked him if that helped regarding what they would ship into MA. He said NO! They won't ship anything into MA or to a non-MA address if the billing address is MA! He said that they hung in there (shipping) until the AG sued Midway, then they decided to stop all shipments to MA.

Then he proceeded to tell me that someone from Dept of Homeland Security in MA called to place an order. Natchez told him "sorry, we can't ship to MA", so he asks if the order is put on DHS letterhead will they ship. Natchez's answer was NO! The DHS guy was perplexed and the Natchez person told him to take it up with Tom Reilly!! [evil]

In one way this is good, if serfs can't buy, neither should the lords of the land!

The person from Natchez was very nice, polite and apologetic. I can see their viewpoint, the cost of litigation just isn't worth it for the principle. The AG could easily bankrupt most of these vendors in litigation!
 
I took some time today to send off my C&R FFL to a few (very few) suppliers. I decided to call Natchez to see if they gave a C&R FFL discount. Gentleman said no, so I asked him if that helped regarding what they would ship into MA. He said NO! They won't ship anything into MA or to a non-MA address if the billing address is MA! He said that they hung in there (shipping) until the AG sued Midway, then they decided to stop all shipments to MA.

Then he proceeded to tell me that someone from Dept of Homeland Security in MA called to place an order. Natchez told him "sorry, we can't ship to MA", so he asks if the order is put on DHS letterhead will they ship. Natchez's answer was NO! The DHS guy was perplexed and the Natchez person told him to take it up with Tom Reilly!! [evil]

In one way this is good, if serfs can't buy, neither should the lords of the land!

The person from Natchez was very nice, polite and apologetic. I can see their viewpoint, the cost of litigation just isn't worth it for the principle. The AG could easily bankrupt most of these vendors in litigation!
 
The interesting thing is who will become AG after Dictator Reilly becomes gov.? It seems to me that the level of disrespect the liberals in this state have for the US Constitution keeps getting worse. Our biggest problem is that you could have a nobel prize winner run against Teddy the drunk and he would still get elected! The people in this state will not wake up until the SHTF and it's too late or until they are a crime victim.

End of rant. (for today)
 
Back
Top Bottom