Upcoming Mass Gun Control hearings...

[cekim]

Here's another example of how less restrictive gun laws lower crime to throw out at the next hearing:



From FoxNews:

Virginia gun crime drops, as state's firearms sales soar | Fox News

NES Thread discussion:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...n-crime-drops-states-firearms-sales-soar.html

Yes, in the "national debate", MA is stuck in the 1970's trying to flog the same dead gun control horse.

Safety comes form personal responsibility, community and the right and expectation of protecting yourself and loved ones.

The rest of the country is progressing toward more sane approaches to public safety and not continuing to vilify law abiding people.

 

[jefftk]

State House News -- Mental health, school security shaping up as themes in gun safety bill - Hanover, MA - Hanover Mariner

One bill the committee is looking at, filed by Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick), would require gun license applicants to disclose their mental health histories. Linsky’s bill also would prohibit assault weapons from being stored in homes, ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, and require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.


“I like the idea of mental health checks and people disclosing their history,” Naughton saidThursday in a phone interview.

I think at the next hearing another thing we need to make clear is forcing people to hand over private medical records, or undergo some sort of evaluation, in order to exercise their civil rights is an unacceptable violation of privacy.

 

[MrJones79]

Does anyone know if there is a video floating around anywhere of the full hearing at AIC? I've seen some clips, but can't find it in full length.

 

[Coyote33]

So, overall, how did Springfield go? I think there was a LOT more writeup on the Worcester one.

This reminds me, I need to re-write and re-submit my WRITTEN TESTIMONY.

I cannot suggest this STRONGLY ENOUGH to everyone here. Take a minute and write a letter, and mail it in to the committee, as well as your state rep and state senator, and the head of the state senate and reps.

 

[garandman]

/
I think at the next hearing another thing we need to make clear is forcing people to hand over private medical records, or undergo some sort of evaluation, in order to exercise their civil rights is an unacceptable violation of privacy.

Do you think it would be effective to note that as an employer, I would also like to look at their mental health records? In fact if that passes I think I will suggest employers require a LCF as a condition of employment, since that will help me screen employees.

Is there a 4 minute time limit on testimony?

 

[cekim]

Do you think it would be effective to note that as an employer, I would also like to look at their mental health records? In fact if that passes I think I will suggest employers require a LCF as a condition of employment, since that will help me screen employees.

Is there a 4 minute time limit on testimony?

Generally 2-3.

 

[pastera]

You can go 5 minutes as a pro gun talker before the disinterested, hair twirling, self involved [STRIKE=bimbo]bimbo[/STRIKE] assistant starts banging on her iPhone to 'ding' you into stopping.

What's weird is the iPhone seems to get stuck until 10 minutes for anti's.

 

[Coyote33]

Join together with 3 other people, and give your group a name. Then, call it the "(your group name) panel", and go on and on for as long as you like.

Some possible panel names:
Civic Minded People for Common Sense Gun Laws Panel
Safety First Gun Law Panel
Protect Our Children Panel
Let's Talk Common Sense Laws Panel

alternative names:
Mission Opportunity Outreach Newtown Blanket Antigun Team (MOONBAT)
Guns Failsafe Women (GFW)
Women Upset Someone Shoots Breaks Another Gun-law (WUSSBAG)

 

[Bull27]

No. I hope you're kidding. We are talking about a constitutional right. Further, if you aren't kidding, you're ridiculous thinking that you have the right to go through full medical records of potential employees. I hire employees based on experience, skills and attitude. Ever heard of privacy, HIPAA, you're just as bad as Linsky GTFO. Move to the USSR...

Do you think it would be effective to note that as an employer, I would also like to look at their mental health records? In fact if that passes I think I will suggest employers require a LCF as a condition of employment, since that will help me screen employees.

Is there a 4 minute time limit on testimony?

 

[Grace]

Are many planning on attending Wilmington Monday? Also, are there any more stops on the 'listening tour' scheduled?

 

[garandman]

No. I hope you're kidding. We are talking about a constitutional right. Further, if you aren't kidding, you're ridiculousw thinking that you have the right to go through full medical records of potential employees. I hire employees based on experience, skills and attitude. Ever heard of privacy, HIPAA, Go to Google.
you're just bad as Linsky GTFO. Move to the USSR...

open new tab.
Type in Google
In the query bar type in "Define Strawman Argument."
Profit.

It's a technique used against us all the time.

Examples

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.

B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim. ]

 

[dhuze]

You can go 5 minutes as a pro gun talker before the disinterested, hair twirling, self involved [STRIKE=bimbo]bimbo[/STRIKE] assistant starts banging on her iPhone to 'ding' you into stopping.

What's weird is the iPhone seems to get stuck until 10 minutes for anti's.

This happened at the Rhode Island hearings as well. We timed everyone and 7-10 for anti's was average and 1 1/2-3 was average for pro gun. Unfortunately for them we vastly out numbered the anti's and kept both the house and senate there until 2-3 am.

 

[garandman]

I hope to go part of Monday and testify in Boston.
Sounds like timing each presenter would be interesting.
Does anyone tape the proceedings?

 

[swatgig]

Join together with 3 other people, and give your group a name. Then, call it the "(your group name) panel", and go on and on for as long as you like.

Some possible panel names:
Civic Minded People for Common Sense Gun Laws Panel
Safety First Gun Law Panel
Protect Our Children Panel
Let's Talk Common Sense Laws Panel

alternative names:
Mission Opportunity Outreach Newtown Blanket Antigun Team (MOONBAT)
Guns Failsafe Women (GFW)
Women Upset Someone Shoots Breaks Another Gun-law (WUSSBAG)

Freedom Under Constitutional Karma Or Freedom Fighters (********)

 

[Coyote33]

You can go 5 minutes as a pro gun talker before the disinterested, hair twirling, self involved [STRIKE=bimbo]bimbo[/STRIKE] assistant starts banging on her iPhone to 'ding' you into stopping. What's weird is the iPhone seems to get stuck until 10 minutes for anti's.

This happened at the Rhode Island hearings as well. We timed everyone and 7-10 for anti's was average and 1 1/2-3 was average for pro gun. Unfortunately for them we vastly out numbered the anti's and kept both the house and senate there until 2-3 am.

Our side should bring our own timer, and make sure we have a LOUD BELL, or better yet, an air horn. At the end of the time, just keep ringing or blasting until they stop.

Freedom Under Constitutional Karma Or Freedom Fighters (********)

Awesome!

 

[cekim]

I hope to go part of Monday and testify in Boston.
Sounds like timing each presenter would be interesting.
Does anyone tape the proceedings?

Boston? The hearing was at Wilmington High last I checked. Did they move it?

 

[jefftk]

You can go 5 minutes as a pro gun talker before the disinterested, hair twirling, self involved [STRIKE=bimbo]bimbo[/STRIKE] assistant starts banging on her iPhone to 'ding' you into stopping.

What's weird is the iPhone seems to get stuck until 10 minutes for anti's.

That is really not the impression I got at the Worcester hearing. They definitely gave panels more leeway, and it so happened that most of the anti's testified in panels. Plenty of pro-gun speakers spoke for well over 3 minutes. As long as you are not rambling and are making a coherent point I don't think they will harshly cut you off.

I'm not sure if the situation was much different in Springfield though.

 

[garandman]

Boston? The hearing was at Wilmington High last I checked. Did they move it?

Tomorrow Wilmington, believe last one is Boston.

 

[vipprimo]

I need to submit something but work doesn't allow me to go. This sucks.

 

[Coyote33]

I need to submit something but work doesn't allow me to go. This sucks.

You still can submit written testimony. You now have no excuse! Feel free to run it by NES for proofing (STRONGLY suggested).

 

[vipprimo]

You still can submit written testimony. You now have no excuse! Feel free to run it by NES for proofing (STRONGLY suggested).

I wanted to go. I just don't feel the written will be read with the same ferocity. Where do you send the written testimony btw?

One thing I've noticed nobody saying is if you continue to read the anti-play book you'll hear over and over your "right to not be a victim". Yet, in 1856 it was clearly read as each person has a responsibility to their own safety. The problem is more people read into it "the cops don't have to protect you." We need to point out that we do not have the right to not be a victim, yet bills are being introduced that take away our abilities to defend. It would be like saying there are hundreds of fires so let's just take away your fire extinguisher yet the bad guys can have as many matches as they like. My point is that congress can't have it both ways. You either allow us to defend ourselves or take responsibility for our safety. the reality is all these laws have provisions for officers to be exempt. If that's true them we need it too.

 

[GlockJock]

Tomorrow Wilmington, believe last one is Boston.

There is one at the state house coming up also, isn't there?

 

[cekim]

There is one at the state house coming up also, isn't there?

Yes, that is the last one in September I believe.

 

[PaulD]

I wanted to go. I just don't feel the written will be read with the same ferocity. Where do you send the written testimony btw?

One thing I've noticed nobody saying is if you continue to read the anti-play book you'll hear over and over your "right to not be a victim". Yet, in 1856 it was clearly read as each person has a responsibility to their own safety. The problem is more people read into it "the cops don't have to protect you." We need to point out that we do not have the right to not be a victim, yet bills are being introduced that take away our abilities to defend. It would be like saying there are hundreds of fires so let's just take away your fire extinguisher yet the bad guys can have as many matches as they like. My point is that congress can't have it both ways. You either allow us to defend ourselves or take responsibility for our safety. the reality is all these laws have provisions for officers to be exempt. If that's true them we need it too.

And it's been repeatedly found that the police have no duty to protect a given person. So, if there is a "right not to be a victim" then, as you say, the only person who can enforce that right is yourself.

 

[garandman]

I was there for the last hour, when the meeting wrapped up at around 2:45. Are any of the folks who testified in the last hour online here? There were seven people, two who returned to speak again.

 

[Horrible]

That is really not the impression I got at the Worcester hearing. They definitely gave panels more leeway, and it so happened that most of the anti's testified in panels. Plenty of pro-gun speakers spoke for well over 3 minutes. As long as you are not rambling and are making a coherent point I don't think they will harshly cut you off.

I'm not sure if the situation was much different in Springfield though.

That's pretty much what happened in Springfield.

Thanks to all that attended today!

How was everything relative to the other hearings? Same pack of antis? More or less for our side?

 

[Mike S]

That's pretty much what happened in Springfield.

Thanks to all that attended today?

How was everything relative to the other hearings? Same pack of antis? More or less for our side?

Today's hearing. A picture speaks a thousand words.

 

[Bill Katt]

Mike S.??
Do we have a date/time yet for the hearing at the statehouse that's supposed to be in Sept.??

 

[KAYSPOP]

Today's hearing. A picture speaks a thousand words.

So they (Anti's) basically got what they wanted...Schedule a hearing for a Monday morning, in a not-very-convenient location, at 10am when , unless you are retired, a layabout on EBT, etc, you can't possibly attend since, like myself, you own a business AND work a full time job AND (etc etc)....This way you'll get 12 people to show up, a couple of whom were retirees who happened to be walking by on their morning stroll. and figured this will be a great place to get some free milk and cookies....

 

[garandman]

So they (Anti's) basically got what they wanted...Schedule a hearing for a Monday morning, in a not-very-convenient location, at 10am when , unless you are retired, a layabout on EBT, etc, you can't possibly attend since, like myself, you own a business AND work a full time job AND (etc etc)....This way you'll get 12 people to show up, a couple of whom were retirees who happened to be walking by on their morning stroll. and figured this will be a great place to get some free milk and cookies....

How long were you there?

I was only there an hour, but pretty much every person who spoke was against the proposed restrictive legislation. Not sure if that was true in the morning, the Chair claimed it was a "full house" first thing in the morning.