Proposal to come before Lexington Town Meeting

If what you are referring to is that NRs/non-TMMs had to sit in a separate area, then you are unaware that the LAW requires them to be separated to prevent a vote count to include those that are NOT ENTITLED legally to vote.

Our open town meeting cordons off a separate area for "non voters" (who might be residents or not, but aren't registered to vote in the town), and standing votes are done frequently.

Whether you had 80 NES'rs there or 180 wouldn't make any difference to those entitled to vote, especially if they were non-residents. What was needed was for residents to reach out to their TMMs representing them and explain what this was all about and how they expected the TMM to vote. It's a tough task but the only way to prevent what happened last night at the local level.

Watch to see what GOAL does with the info about what happened here and is happening elsewhere. If they are smart, they will use it to advantage to move the state preemption bill into law.

Wasn't referring to the separation of TMMs versus the citizens at all. Not sure how you gleamed that from my comments.

Anyhow, I agree with your sentiment about the turnout. If we 500 on our side it wouldn't have made a difference. Discussion was shut down a little over 2 hours in with several Pro-2A folks in line to speak.
 
He claimed assault rifles could fire "600 - 900 rounds per minute."
They can--at least in theory--since an "assault rifle" is by definition a select-fire weapon, being well-represented by, say, the M4. The M4, an assault rifle, has a cyclic rate of 700–950 rounds per minute, though the practical rate is lower. If instead he said "assault weapon" he was flat out wrong.
http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Military/Products/Colt-M4-Carbine#lt-100845-technical-specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine
The AK-47, another assault rifle, has a cyclic rate of about 600 rounds per minute but a much lower practical rate of fire.
When called on it, he actually started to stutter.
Sounds as if _what_ he was called on _might_ have been incorrect. If he said "assault rifle" the he was misinformed about the types of firearms being discussed. If he said "assault weapon" then he was wrong about the rate of fire.

It never ceases to amaze me that people on pro-2A sites cannot keep this extremely simple concept straight.

Also, too bad about the meeting. It sets a bad precedent since TMMs were willing to sign onto a resolution based on falsehoods and a general fear and loathing of firearms.
 
Last edited:
They can--at least in theory--since an "assault rifle" is by definition a select-fire weapon, being well-represented by, say, the M4. The M4, an assault rifle, has a cyclic rate of 700–950 rounds per minute, though the practical rate is lower. If instead he said "assault weapon" he was flat out wrong.
http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Military/Products/Colt-M4-Carbine#lt-100845-technical-specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine
The AK-47, another assault rifle, has a cyclic rate of about 600 rounds per minute but a much lower practical rate of fire.

Sounds as if _what_ he was called on _might_ have been incorrect. If he said "assault rifle" the he was misinformed about the types of firearms being discussed. If he said "assault weapon" then he was wrong about the rate of fire.

It never ceases to amaze me that people on pro-2A sites cannot keep this extremely simple concept straight.

Our opponents purposefully confuse people on this subject. The media shows video of machine guns being fired while discussing banning semi-autos.

"Assault weapon" is a term entirely fabricated by the gun grabbers. It simply has no legitimate meaning when discussing firearms.
 
Our opponents purposefully confuse people on this subject. The media shows video of machine guns being fired while discussing banning semi-autos.

"Assault weapon" is a term entirely fabricated by the gun grabbers. It simply has no legitimate meaning when discussing firearms.
We all know this, but gun owners posting on NES should not be the ones getting confused by the terms. The disarmament enthusiast at the meeting who said "assault rifles" could fire "600 - 900 rounds per minute" was wrong for one of two different reasons, depending on whether he was quoted accurately. Which was it?
 
We all know this, but gun owners posting on NES should not be the ones getting confused by the terms. The disarmament enthusiast at the meeting who said "assault rifles" could fire "600 - 900 rounds per minute" was wrong for one of two different reasons, depending on whether he was quoted accurately. Which was it?

I'm just saying, don't give legitimacy to "assault weapon", because it isn't. Also, not all AK-47's are fully automatic.
 
Wasn't referring to the separation of TMMs versus the citizens at all. Not sure how you gleamed that from my comments.

Anyhow, I agree with your sentiment about the turnout. If we 500 on our side it wouldn't have made a difference. Discussion was shut down a little over 2 hours in with several Pro-2A folks in line to speak.

That is why I posed it as a question/assumption. Not being there I don't know what you meant if not for my assumption.

Yes and No mics make sense, as a good moderator will go back in forth between them to be fair to all assembled.
 
That is why I posed it as a question/assumption. Not being there I don't know what you meant if not for my assumption.

Yes and No mics make sense, as a good moderator will go back in forth between them to be fair to all assembled.

No problem. Was referring to the marked "Free Speech Zone" outside. As if we can't speak our minds a few feet from it. Understand the town meeting process and was appreciative of the moderator allowing non-residents to spea. Although, there were several Pro-2A people that hadn't spoken yet.

Sorry if I came off a bit snippy. Still a bit fired up from last night. And the more I think about how uninformed, half-baked dangerous solutions were offered prior to any conversation, discussion or debate, the more irritated I get. NOW they want to start a conversation. We KNOW what their desired results are.

They REALLY needed to start from scratch here to retain even a small shred of integrity and its clear that after last nights results, that they don't GAF.
 
Last edited:
No problem. Was referring to the marked "Free Speech Zone" outside. As if we can't speak our minds a few feet from it. Understand the town meeting process and was appreciative of the moderator allowing non-residents to spea. Although, there were several Pro-2A people that hadn't spoken yet.

Sorry if I came off a bit snippy. Still a bit fired up from last night. And the more I think about how uninformed, half-baked dangerous solutions were offered prior to any conversation, discussion or debate, the more irritated I get. NOW they want to start a conversation. We KNOW what their desired results are.

They REALLY needed to start from scratch here to retain even a small shred of integrity and its clear that after last nights results, that they don't GAF.

This is what it will look like if we do not fight them every day.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27420858
 
No problem. Was referring to the marked "Free Speech Zone" outside. As if we can't speak our minds a few feet from it.

Ah, now I know what you meant. That BS about "Free Speech Zones" being 1/4 mile from an event was legalized for the DNC convention some years ago IIRC and is now used regularly to DENY free speech to anyone disagreeing with the majority. I don't believe people should be allowed to block others from entering/leaving an event or being disruptive, but the FSZ stuff as currently implemented IS a 1-A infringement in operation.
 
Now look what the putz is saying: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lextmma/Oo-lPELnnes


He's still conflating fully and semi-automatic. And my statement last night that he cited the wrong section of the code was proven correct by town counsel, who looked it up and read it. The resolution cites M.G.L. c. 140, § 131M. But all that does is establish the grandfathering date and penalty. The important part, with the definition of what constitutes an "assault rifle" (which he should have cited), is M.G.L. c. 140, § 121. And the bulk of MA firearms laws, including the big re-write in 2014, are in section 284.
 
I'm just saying, don't give legitimacy to "assault weapon", because it isn't.
I'm bad at following orders handed down from denizens on the Internet, but I already only use the term inside quotes, just as you did, since--as I stated previously--it is a nonsense term.
Also, not all AK-47's are fully automatic.
Maybe not being an expert on Kalashnikovs I will ultimately stand corrected, but I have never heard of an Автомат Калашникова (AK-47) that was not manufactured to be select fire, even though plenty of AKM/AK-variants (not AK-47s) that are are semi-automatic only.

Anyway, I guess it will never be known exactly what Rotberg said during the meeting.
 
They should all scurry back to England and leave the rest of us real Americans alone.

That message board is ridiculous. It's no wonder this country is circling the drain.
 
Last edited:
The great irony here is that one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is to prevent is to prevent the tyranny of the majority and mob rule.

I believe that this was discussed earlier in the thread but I'll bring it up again. Can a town by-law proscribe incarceration as a penalty for violators? If not, then wouldn't a fine of say, $300, for possession of a rifle that falls under the state definition of "assault weapon" then prevent the state from prosecuting the individual under state law because of double jeopardy?
 
Then he is doing it intentionally, an old Sugarmann tactic that has served the disarmament enthusiast cause well. Bloomberg still does it, too.

His point (and other antis) is eh who cares they fire fast, gotta ban them all.
They can google. He is an educated person. Of course he is doing all this intentionally in order to confuse and frighten the succeptible.

Edit: my view on antis - never attribute to stupidity something that can be adequately explained by malice.
 
^^This^^

If you get a state law passed to protect rights then the towns wont be able to pull the shenanigans

Hopefully Rep. Vieira will be announcing his fact finding discussion schedule soon, once he sits down with some of the towns who think it's OK to go above MA law we will hopefully see movement on the bill. I know for a fact it has generated some interest at the State House. Keep an eye on GOAL comm's for an announcement of the schedule asap (I hope)
 
Ah, now I know what you meant. That BS about "Free Speech Zones" being 1/4 mile from an event was legalized for the DNC convention some years ago IIRC and is now used regularly to DENY free speech to anyone disagreeing with the majority. I don't believe people should be allowed to block others from entering/leaving an event or being disruptive, but the FSZ stuff as currently implemented IS a 1-A infringement in operation.


Minitrue says it's a plus plus good thing.
 
just posted a comment to the wicked local, will get flamed on it I am sure

here it is

Mr Rotberg said that Mass has strong laws but not the strongest in the nation. Well Chicago has the strongest gun laws, you cannot own a gun there and yet they are on course to set a new record for gun murders this year. Funny criminals don't obey the law, maybe we should go after criminals rather than the law abiding gun owners.



Read some of the comments on the glob article until I wanted to throw up. One idiot said that with cash you can buy anything you want in any other state, NOT LEGALLY, but the anti's don't care if they break the law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom