"TOUGHEST IN THE NATION" status

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
57
Likes
6
This is getting comical.

It's like a contest to see which state can claim the 'Toughest In The Nation" gun-control laws.

First NY...then CO...now CT

Is the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts next???
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
2,753
Likes
443
Location
495 / Rt 9 corridor
are you kidding me?, our govement needs to have the biggest "winnie". I am sure they are "stroking" even tougher laws here in the Peoples Republic. Who knows, they may even try to have a vote as we sleep tonight.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
2,080
Likes
116
Location
in VA waiting on the fuse to be lit
Short of outright confiscation of mags or AR's, it may be tough for MA to top CT. Confiscation is probably out for takings reasons (state has no money to compensate anyone for confiscating their guns).

I suppose they could go with a single round only concept. Start practicing the single shot/reload/single shot drill.
 
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
2,839
Likes
426
Location
North Shore, MA :(
Short of outright confiscation of mags or AR's, it may be tough for MA to top CT. Confiscation is probably out for takings reasons (state has no money to compensate anyone for confiscating their guns).

I suppose they could go with a single round only concept. Start practicing the single shot/reload/single shot drill.

The lack of money doesn't stop them from feeding illegal aliens, overpaying toll takers, and lining the pockets of campaign donors. It would not stop them from taking guns. Even beyond that, Devil Patrique is looking for $1B in new taxes to make da roads awesome, why not ask for a few million to take away the death machines?
 

hminsky

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
78   0   0
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
8,686
Likes
4,883
How about competing for the toughest laws on violent crime, instead of on lawful citizens?
 

murf4321

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
1,852
Likes
1,396
From what I've read on the subject it doesn't sound like Deval is proposing further magazine limits or "assault weapon" restrictions. Biggest changes would be "enhanced" background screening, and a 1 gun per month limit on purchases. Which is ridiculous.
 

Serapis

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,990
Likes
592
No one cared when it was just a few states with AWB. Now that more and more are clinging to it, I think it will be easier to fight them in federal courts. All it takes is one.
 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,908
Likes
2,688
Location
NH
The two biggest challenges in general will be banning AWs (which CT and NY have done) and the mag limits. NY also has the restrictions on transfer of AWs. I wonder if anyone is mobilizing in CO and CT to file lawsuits.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
1,234
Likes
242
Location
Chelmsford
I want one the the more conservative states to go overboard with an AWB so it can be challenged strongly in federal court, unfortunately it would probably be struck down at the state level...
 

Livefreeormass

NES Member
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
1,323
Likes
116
Location
128495
I can think of at least half a dozen tougher measures that would suffocate my gun rights here in mAss, short of confiscation, and would pass into law. Not sharing them though.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
3,603
Likes
901
Location
Mid-Coastal free Maine
I read the link about Maryland's new legislation. It sounded strangely familiar to what we just had to endure here in CT. The left was totally successful in pegging the AR15 as a dedicated military killing machine, don't ya know, and there's no place in a civil society for them, period. So, like CT they'll make them illegal from here on out.

Here in CT I got good intel from an insider who was privy to the debate in the caucus between the Dems and Repubs here in HArtford. The word is that when it was decided to take total confiscation of both the rifles and magazine off the table, a number of hardnose, progressive liberals stormed out of the meeting. That's how far some of the legislators here wanted to go with this: outright confiscation of our rifles and magazine. That would not have gone over well with the general public here, let me tell you. So, we got this "grandfather' situation. Keep and register what you have and you can't have anymore.

My wife (a scientist and pro 2a supporter) has occasional conversations with young adults (in the 30s) at her work. These youngsters are totally and absolutely uneducated about any of this and just go with the flow; "who needs guns, etc., etc. bullets are bad, etc., etc". That's who's fueling this whole mess, the uneducated, undereducated, ignorant, general public. The 2a is meaningless in today's modern day and age. When she asks them who is going to protect them from a rotten government in the future, she might as well have lobsters crawling out of her ears, she said. Why would our government want to harm us? At that point the conversation ended and she went on her way.

These people follow those arrogent, narsassistic, greedy bastard politicians who know just how to push those sheeps to the slaughter. Unless we fight back at some point soon, we're screwed.


Rome
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
7,266
Likes
1,424
Location
Metrowest
From what I've read on the subject it doesn't sound like Deval is proposing further magazine limits or "assault weapon" restrictions. Biggest changes would be "enhanced" background screening, and a 1 gun per month limit on purchases. Which is ridiculous.

You aren't paying attention. If you read the bills, instead of just listening to what they are saying, you'll see that they are trying to effectively bans most semi-automatic weapons.

The provisions of Patrick's bill defines all firearms/magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds as assault weapons or high capacity, bans all mags over 10 rounds, and changes the definition of assault weapon to one feature. Linsky's bill changes LTC 's so they no longer permit you to buy, sell, or possess high capacity firearms or magazines, keep them in your home, and adds insurance and mental health record inclusion. It also changes FID to may issue.

They are, in fact, going to take your guns away. Or at least they are trying to.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
12,638
Likes
5,819
Location
NOLA
How about competing for the toughest laws on violent crime, instead of on lawful citizens?

THIS!

Pols only care about gun crime, b/c that apparently scares the sheep into voting for them. Plus Dems are looking to reduce the # of lawful gun owners so they can more easily get elected (less gun owners, less people to vote against them and less money for the NRA).

This is accomplished by enacting more stringent and confusing laws. Bottom line they don't give a $hit about crime, only greasing their palms.
 

silversquirrel

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
3,211
Likes
3,800
Location
Gloucester
I read the link about Maryland's new legislation. It sounded strangely familiar to what we just had to endure here in CT. The left was totally successful in pegging the AR15 as a dedicated military killing machine, don't ya know, and there's no place in a civil society for them, period. So, like CT they'll make them illegal from here on out.

Here in CT I got good intel from an insider who was privy to the debate in the caucus between the Dems and Repubs here in HArtford. The word is that when it was decided to take total confiscation of both the rifles and magazine off the table, a number of hardnose, progressive liberals stormed out of the meeting. That's how far some of the legislators here wanted to go with this: outright confiscation of our rifles and magazine. That would not have gone over well with the general public here, let me tell you. So, we got this "grandfather' situation. Keep and register what you have and you can't have anymore.

My wife (a scientist and pro 2a supporter) has occasional conversations with young adults (in the 30s) at her work. These youngsters are totally and absolutely uneducated about any of this and just go with the flow; "who needs guns, etc., etc. bullets are bad, etc., etc". That's who's fueling this whole mess, the uneducated, undereducated, ignorant, general public. The 2a is meaningless in today's modern day and age. When she asks them who is going to protect them from a rotten government in the future, she might as well have lobsters crawling out of her ears, she said. Why would our government want to harm us? At that point the conversation ended and she went on her way.

These people follow those arrogent, narsassistic, greedy bastard politicians who know just how to push those sheeps to the slaughter. Unless we fight back at some point soon, we're screwed.


Rome

This gets to the heart of the matter. You can blame Fudds or Liberals or the Easter Bunny... but the vast majority of low information voter types just dont know... and you cant care, if you dont know.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
2,643
Likes
265
Location
Here
Im calling it now, its only a matter of time before the state has a hand gun ban and then the the place becomes home to the scum of the earth who love gun free zones
 

mav

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
3,257
Likes
4,258
Location
Southeastern Mass
So the states of CT, NY, and MD have banned the AR-15 and AK variants as well as magazines with capacity in excess of x. They get around the polarizing nature of confiscation by making illegal the ability to transfer or sell the now-banned firearm in state. If you have a "pre-ban" weapon, you either leave the state with it or die, and your weapons are destroyed or sold out-of-state. They placate current owners by allowing you to keep what you already have (gee, thanks).

Bottom line, if these laws stay on the books for the next 20 or 30 years, there won't be a need to confiscate because the ban will have removed firearms from circulation among the law-abiding. Looks to me like the Liberal and gun grabber statists have taken the long-term view to break the 2A...

Is that enough for "Go Time" or is it too soon, as we still have 40+ states to move to that embrace 2A? [thinking]
 

Livefreeormass

NES Member
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
1,323
Likes
116
Location
128495
You aren't paying attention. If you read the bills, instead of just listening to what they are saying, you'll see that they are trying to effectively bans most semi-automatic weapons.

The provisions of Patrick's bill defines all firearms/magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds as assault weapons or high capacity, bans all mags over 10 rounds, and changes the definition of assault weapon to one feature. Linsky's bill changes LTC 's so they no longer permit you to buy, sell, or possess high capacity firearms or magazines, keep them in your home, and adds insurance and mental health record inclusion. It also changes FID to may issue.

They are, in fact, going to take your guns away. Or at least they are trying to.
He's got the popular support. No stopping it I'm afraid. The only viable option for us is... you know the answer.
 

mav

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
3,257
Likes
4,258
Location
Southeastern Mass
Boil the frog... No go time.

Kind of my point... 20 years from now we will have lost the war without firing a shot. The only way to counter this strategy is to do the unexpected. No one expects Full Retard Revolution because it's "too soon". Too many people with too much to lose, trying to give democracy, the legislative process, and the legal process a chance in the hopes that it will all work out.

You think the liberal think tanks behind this latest gun grab haven't thought that far out?

Screw it, might as well all just move to Texas and call it good.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
2,643
Likes
265
Location
Here
So the states of CT, NY, and MD have banned the AR-15 and AK variants as well as magazines with capacity in excess of x. They get around the polarizing nature of confiscation by making illegal the ability to transfer or sell the now-banned firearm in state. If you have a "pre-ban" weapon, you either leave the state with it or die, and your weapons are destroyed or sold out-of-state. They placate current owners by allowing you to keep what you already have (gee, thanks).

Bottom line, if these laws stay on the books for the next 20 or 30 years, there won't be a need to confiscate because the ban will have removed firearms from circulation among the law-abiding. Looks to me like the Liberal and gun grabber statists have taken the long-term view to break the 2A...

Is that enough for "Go Time" or is it too soon, as we still have 40+ states to move to that embrace 2A? [thinking]

As far as 2A is concerned, There will not be a go time if they never use a confiscation in a gun control bill, since that would be the only thing that would push people over the edge,

its in there best intrest to legislate a slow prosess of elimination of guns since they do not know where half the guns are to confiscate them anyways, so this is there only real option, slow and under the radar

first make it harder for new shooters to get LTC and Slowly stop sales of new guns, then stop transfers of old guns, Now with no one to transfer your guns to when you die they get destroyed.

They may also try and make legal LTC Holders un eligible to renew because of some other BS laws they make up. And then force the poeple to get rid of there guns.

I do not like what i see happining today.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom