Proposal to come before Lexington Town Meeting

Freddy B said:
When writing Town Meeting Members, please don't do it anonymously. Somebody recently did, and it did our cause more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Was it just writing anonymously that did harm, or what was written?

I agree though, you're not helping youself by trying to remain anonymous with someone that is supposed to be your representative.
 
jefftk said:
Was it just writing anonymously that did harm, or what was written?
Click to expand...

Here's the thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lextmma/mXHc5HUIIaY

A group of Lexington residents, with GOAL's help, is trying to defeat this effort. We'd love the help of the region's shooting community. Please bear in mind, though, that it's a group of about 200 Town Meeting Members that we are trying to reach. They are going to be a tough nut to crack. To be successful, we must be aware of their sensibilities, and tailor our approach to it. Anonymous cut and paste correspondence, threats, crude language, etc., will undermine our efforts. I'm not scolding anybody. This is just the reality of our situation.
 
the majority of the non owners aren't anti, they just don't understand and know about guns. I was one of them.

If you speak to them as if they understand guns, you won't get any points across.

Best picture I saw was a side by side of a Ruger 10-22 and S&W MP 15-22.

Asked a bunch of non gun people what is the difference between them?

All answered MP is assault rifle, Ruger is for plinking etc. All were stunned to find out they both had 10 round magazines, both classified as semi automatic etc etc.

Show this pic at the town meeting, and uneducated will say this is what the ban is about. Getting of rid of the SW, when in fact the Ruger is EXACTLY the same, just looks different.

The majority just are un educated. Educate them!
 
boatman said:
the majority of the non owners aren't anti, they just don't understand and know about guns. I was one of them.

If you speak to them as if they understand guns, you won't get any points across.

Best picture I saw was a side by side of a Ruger 10-22 and S&W MP 15-22.

Asked a bunch of non gun people what is the difference between them?

All answered MP is assault rifle, Ruger is for plinking etc. All were stunned to find out they both had 10 round magazines, both classified as semi automatic etc etc.

Show this pic at the town meeting, and uneducated will say this is what the ban is about. Getting of rid of the SW, when in fact the Ruger is EXACTLY the same, just looks different.

The majority just are un educated. Educate them!
Click to expand...


I've been dying to make a side-by-side video with a Mini-14 in wood furniture and another Mini-14 in an archangel stock. Then when the question is asked and answered, swap barreled actions and magazines between the two (takes under a minute I believe) and say "and now which one is the deer rifle?"
 
jtnf said:
I've been dying to make a side-by-side video with a Mini-14 in wood furniture and another Mini-14 in an archangel stock. Then when the question is asked and answered, swap barreled actions and magazines between the two (takes under a minute I believe) and say "and now which one is the deer rifle?"
Click to expand...

You forget it is all "generation cupcake" anything that looks scary is to be banned.

Colleges don't allow differing opinions are not allowed anymore.
 
boatman said:
the majority of the non owners aren't anti, they just don't understand and know about guns. I was one of them.

If you speak to them as if they understand guns, you won't get any points across.

Best picture I saw was a side by side of a Ruger 10-22 and S&W MP 15-22.

Asked a bunch of non gun people what is the difference between them?

All answered MP is assault rifle, Ruger is for plinking etc. All were stunned to find out they both had 10 round magazines, both classified as semi automatic etc etc.

Show this pic at the town meeting, and uneducated will say this is what the ban is about. Getting of rid of the SW, when in fact the Ruger is EXACTLY the same, just looks different.

The majority just are un educated. Educate them!
Click to expand...


I think one of the biggest things the "uneducated" folks need to be educated on is that these items that people are trying to ban are in fact quite normal and popular.
The myth that such proposed bans will not affect "normal/reasonable" gun owners need to be dispelled.

They need to be aware that voting for this means voting to turn their neighbors in to criminals by fiat. Is it their prerogative to send their neighbors to jail over this? Or do they just want coerce their neighbors, with the threat of fines and imprisonment, to forfeit property which they maintain they have the right to own? Is this a good way to build strong communities?
 
jtnf said:
I've been dying to make a side-by-side video with a Mini-14 in wood furniture and another Mini-14 in an archangel stock. Then when the question is asked and answered, swap barreled actions and magazines between the two (takes under a minute I believe) and say "and now which one is the deer rifle?"
Click to expand...

Not a Mini-14 but this makes the same point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EuC33sd65A
 
If you want to speak to the Lexington unwashed masses about deer hunting, you could just pick any .308 semi-automatic hunting rifle, then compare to any .308 AR-10, or other black rifle.

But again, this is NOT about deer hunting. Or target shooting. Or even self-defense.

12507209_551902361631608_25867262354723427_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
jefftk said:
I think one of the biggest things the "uneducated" folks need to be educated on is that these items that people are trying to ban are in fact quite normal and popular.
The myth that such proposed bans will not affect "normal/reasonable" gun owners need to be dispelled.

They need to be aware that voting for this means voting to turn their neighbors in to criminals by fiat. Is it their prerogative to send their neighbors to jail over this? Or do they just want coerce their neighbors, with the threat of fines and imprisonment, to forfeit property which they maintain they have the right to own? Is this a good way to build strong communities?
Click to expand...

I think this is nicely said and a good argument.
 
boatman said:
the majority of the non owners aren't anti, they just don't understand and know about guns. I was one of them.

If you speak to them as if they understand guns, you won't get any points across.

Best picture I saw was a side by side of a Ruger 10-22 and S&W MP 15-22.

Asked a bunch of non gun people what is the difference between them?

All answered MP is assault rifle, Ruger is for plinking etc. All were stunned to find out they both had 10 round magazines, both classified as semi automatic etc etc.

Show this pic at the town meeting, and uneducated will say this is what the ban is about. Getting of rid of the SW, when in fact the Ruger is EXACTLY the same, just looks different.

The majority just are un educated. Educate them!
Click to expand...

What if they will say "let's them both".
 
Stay away from that argument all together.

This is a right, they are talking about banning legally owned property. In order for the owner of the property to be able to legally possess that property they have to meet the very strict criteria outlined by "the nations toughest gun laws". They have to pass background checks and they can be denied by Lexington's CLEO for any reason including "I don't like his/her haircut".

The town is discussing blatant discrimination against the most upstanding citizens of town, even more insulting, they are talking about banning, then forcefully seizing their property.

This is what needs to be discussed.

If that's passed, what's next, SUV's?
 
SUV's!! Yes let's ban SUV's!

After all there used to be glaciers 6,000 feet deep over New England!!! It was Ogg and Mogg driving their Flinstones SUV's that melted the glaciaers.

Oh wait the libs and beautiful people like SUV's so they cannot be banned, they only go after the things they don't like. At least they will now that there will now be no crime in Lexington.
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
SUV's!! Yes let's ban SUV's!

After all there used to be glaciers 6,000 feet deep over New England!!! It was Ogg and Mogg driving their Flinstones SUV's that melted the glaciaers.

Oh wait the libs and beautiful people like SUV's so they cannot be banned, they only go after the things they don't like. At least they will now that there will now be no crime in Lexington.
Click to expand...

This statement couldnt be more true. Plenty of gun grabbers tout the "if it could save just one life" horn all day. They admit firearms have some legitimate uses... then you ask them if they would stand behind a ban on alcohol, which has little to no use beyond recreation, and they get super defenskve. "Alcohol is different because it isnt designed to kill." You cant take the utilitarian approach and have it both ways.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
crazymjb said:
This statement couldnt be more true. Plenty of gun grabbers tout the "if it could save just one life" horn all day. They admit firearms have some legitimate uses... then you ask them if they would stand behind a ban on alcohol, which has little to no use beyond recreation, and they get super defenskve. "Alcohol is different because it isnt designed to kill." You cant take the utilitarian approach and have it both ways.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

Of course you can, if you believe that you have Truth on your side. Or Virtue. Or Whatever makes your opinion more right that others'. [puke]


A while back, I saw a set-up video, where skateboarders were asked if an item that causes x-number of deaths and injuries per year should be banned, as it could save lives. "Of course!!!!" It wasn't guns. It was skateboards. Oh, that's different......
 
Mike S said:
Stay away from that argument all together.

This is a right, they are talking about banning legally owned property. In order for the owner of the property to be able to legally possess that property they have to meet the very strict criteria outlined by "the nations toughest gun laws". They have to pass background checks and they can be denied by Lexington's CLEO for any reason including "I don't like his/her haircut".

The town is discussing blatant discrimination against the most upstanding citizens of town, even more insulting, they are talking about banning, then forcefully seizing their property.

This is what needs to be discussed.

If that's passed, what's next, SUV's?
Click to expand...


Those Lexington residents preparing to argue this during hearings should not be using the "ban cars, ban SUV's, why not just ban everything?!" argument. It flat out does not work as liberals see it as a straw man argument. They simply do not look at this in those terms. Rotberg himself admitted that this is purely political. He may be moonbat-shit insane but he's not dumb. He knows this isn't going to make anyone any safer.

Remember, this isn't about pumping our own tires, it's about helping the committee understand that approving this petition is bad for the town and a huge concern for local law enforcement regarding how/if they enforce it and how it conflicts with the rights they swore to uphold. Explain how. This needs to die from within. My guess is that Rotberg already has his votes lined up.
 
Last edited:
MisterHappy said:
Of course you can, if you believe that you have Truth on your side. Or Virtue. Or Whatever makes your opinion more right that others'. [puke]


A while back, I saw a set-up video, where skateboarders were asked if an item that causes x-number of deaths and injuries per year should be banned, as it could save lives. "Of course!!!!" It wasn't guns. It was skateboards. Oh, that's different......
Click to expand...

+1

Cars kill more than guns, even with suicides thrown in (2/3 of gun deaths are suicides) of course they say that cars a a tool a necessity, well guns are also.

Why do we need a car than can go faster than the speed liimit? there should be governors on cars to keep them below 65

HEY PEOPLE if you are in favor of self driving cars, do you think they will let them go faster than the posted speed limit? Have you ever paid attention to your Garmin, it tells you the speed limit on virtually any road you are on. My feeling is that the self driving cars will not be able to go faster than the speed limit, have you ever done 20 in a 20 mph zone? It is really slow!
 
People of Lexington need to stand up even the regular people I mean how could the people in the town stand for this even if your anti gun you have to admit that this is fundamentally wrong I mean gun owners in mass are some of the more responsible people in the state
 
Royal said:
Those Lexington residents preparing to argue this during hearings should not be using the "ban cars, ban SUV's, why not just ban everything?!" argument. It flat out does not work as liberals see it as a straw man argument. They simply do not look at this in those terms. Rotberg himself admitted that this is purely political. He may be moonbat-shit insane but he's not dumb. He knows this isn't going to make anyone any safer.

Remember, this isn't about pumping our own tires, it's about helping the committee understand that approving this petition is bad for the town and a huge concern for local law enforcement regarding how/if they enforce it and how it conflicts with the rights they swore to uphold. Explain how. This needs to die from within. My guess is that Rotberg already has his votes lined up.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think vehicle based analogies will just result in collective eye-rolling of the town meeting members.
 
jjm1986 said:
People of Lexington need to stand up even the regular people I mean how could the people in the town stand for this even if your anti gun you have to admit that this is fundamentally wrong I mean gun owners in mass are some of the more responsible people in the state
Click to expand...

Wrong.

People outside our culture see us as "different". Gun Clubs all have "No Trespassing" signs. Not friendly. Gun people are paranoid. If I don't need to carry a gun, why does anyone else? Guns are dangerous. If you have a gun, then I'm in danger. So are you - I saw that on TV. We have police to protect us, this is not the wild west. You don't need a machine gun to hunt deer. In fact, you don't need to hunt deer, just give them contraceptives.

This is the mindset on most Nons. They have only the info that they're given, and that's all that they know.

Very few people will stand up for the rights of others, when theirs are not directly threatened. I've even seen that here, on NES.


This is why we have to do a better job of education and outreach.
 
My point is that most people that I have encountered just don't know about guns. So when antis put out their 'propoganda', this is the information that they use to make their decisions.

If we want to convince them otherwise, we need to educate them and show what is real. Countering the the antis argument with 'what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand' won't ever win those uneducated about firearms. Hence my idea about explaining that the 10-22 and a 15-22 , while looking completely different, are functionally identical! All of a sudden a proposal that says we should ban 15-22s because they have a pistol grip and rail to mount all sorts of cool looking accessories looks silly when pointing out that it is just hype from those who don't understand. People are actually smart and will make the correct choice IF you present them with information to make a choice.
 
I wonder how many Jewish residents had relatives living in Germany during WWII. I guess they forgot that little unpleasantness known as the holocaust.
 
Has anyone researched the cost to the town, of having to pay "fair market value" for banned firearms? This was mentioned earlier, but I have not seen any further discussion of it. Is this argument something that should be considered, or has this approach been shelved for some reason? With an unknown number of full auto, and other arms capable of holding more than 10 rounds, the costs to the town could be substantial.
 
jefftk said:
I agree, I think vehicle based analogies will just result in collective eye-rolling of the town meeting members.
Click to expand...

Yah, that end part of my post re: SUV's was purely in jest. I don't think it should be included in the argument against.

- - - Updated - - -

MisterHappy said:
Wrong.

People outside our culture see us as "different". Gun Clubs all have "No Trespassing" signs. Not friendly. Gun people are paranoid. If I don't need to carry a gun, why does anyone else? Guns are dangerous. If you have a gun, then I'm in danger. So are you - I saw that on TV. We have police to protect us, this is not the wild west. You don't need a machine gun to hunt deer. In fact, you don't need to hunt deer, just give them contraceptives.

This is the mindset on most Nons. They have only the info that they're given, and that's all that they know.

Very few people will stand up for the rights of others, when theirs are not directly threatened. I've even seen that here, on NES.


This is why we have to do a better job of education and outreach.
Click to expand...

100% correct Mike. Not only is that their mindset, they go out of their way to objectify and belittle anyone who is on our side or is "against them".

We have to make this an issue of rights protection. Not "them against us".

ETA - talking about technical features of guns to anyone who is against them is going to go nowhere, their mind is already made up that they don't like guns and nobody is going to change their mind.
 
Last edited:
Mike S said:
ETA - talking about technical features of guns to anyone who is against them is going to go nowhere, their mind is already made up that they don't like guns and nobody is going to change their mind.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons that I think that teaching the Basic Pistol course is a good idea, is that it lets you ( the instructor) know how much people don't know. A Non cares not about the difference between a magazine and a clip, or single or double action, or full v. semi auto.

Most just don't care.

The focus should be on how it impacts them: the problems for their friends and neighbors, who are law-abiding. The problems for the Town (and therefore the taxpayers, who will have to foot the bill) when the lawsuits begin to fly.

Antis are unreachable, by definition. Nons are merely in need of education. OK....education and a kick in the ass. [laugh]
 

Similar threads

LTC class for first timer, before July?
Replies
14
Views
277
paul73
paul73
It must be the influence of the drugs that gives lefties the creative ability to come up with these terms.
Replies
5
Views
191
murphcc1
M
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
Lexington School employee leaves gun on seat of car
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Another chickens have come home to roast thread
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
jkelly1229
J
Back
Top Bottom