Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Last edited:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
UPDATE POST #43 - Maura will host a Town Hall at UMass Amherst 11/13 at 7 pm.
- Thread starter sbi
- Start date
Ok, I have a serious question to ask her. Because I want her painted into a corner. Here you go:
Ms Healy, recently, a gun bill was passed that was attached to a budget bill. As a statement, I would like to call this out as disengenuous at best. But, this leads me into my question:
Since 2004, this state has routinely passed laws-and misinterpreted them-that have only hurt gun owners, and have done nothing about gun crimes. You have passed bans against high capacity magazines, forward grips, collapsible stocks, and bayonet lugs, to name a few. To date-since 1994, in fact-there hasnt been a single person convicted on any of these. Not one. Gun crime has risen year over year since 2000-but, according to a report in 2016-only 17% of gun charges result in convictions. Most are plead out.
Given all these, can you please explain how passing laws that only affect law abiding gun owners in this state-almost a million of us-are actually encouraging criminal acts, when they are almost guaranteed that any gun charges will be thrown out? Who are you actually protecting? Because it seems that the safest element in our society, under your gun control policies, are the criminals themselves. Can you please explain this phenomena?
Ms Healy, recently, a gun bill was passed that was attached to a budget bill. As a statement, I would like to call this out as disengenuous at best. But, this leads me into my question:
Since 2004, this state has routinely passed laws-and misinterpreted them-that have only hurt gun owners, and have done nothing about gun crimes. You have passed bans against high capacity magazines, forward grips, collapsible stocks, and bayonet lugs, to name a few. To date-since 1994, in fact-there hasnt been a single person convicted on any of these. Not one. Gun crime has risen year over year since 2000-but, according to a report in 2016-only 17% of gun charges result in convictions. Most are plead out.
Given all these, can you please explain how passing laws that only affect law abiding gun owners in this state-almost a million of us-are actually encouraging criminal acts, when they are almost guaranteed that any gun charges will be thrown out? Who are you actually protecting? Because it seems that the safest element in our society, under your gun control policies, are the criminals themselves. Can you please explain this phenomena?
MachineHead
NES Member
Lank
NES Member
I hope someone pulls the fire alarm
- - - Updated - - -
Good question, but I suggest replacing "high capacity magazines" with "standard capacity magazines".
- - - Updated - - -
Good question, but I suggest replacing "high capacity magazines" with "standard capacity magazines".
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
And this "law abiding gun owners" with just gun owners
The intent here is to use their language to make a point. Niggling on semantics will lose the audience. Especially as, technically, a magazine doesnt have a standard, and therefore cannot be either low or high capacity.
I chose that verbiage because we, at any given time, are one of the most vetted people in the room. We have to maintain a near spotless record, lest we lose a guaranteed right.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Ask her about this decision by the USSC, and why Mass ignores it ?
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".
MachineHead
NES Member
I say it all the time. You need to speak their language so people see through the bullshit the Left is trying to pull. Since swearing and screaming won’t work in many situations, you might as well do this, which is the next best thing.
Horrible
NES Member
Ask her why the overall violent crime rates in MA are 3X our northern New England neighbors that have Constitutional Carrry?
She will probably respond with another myth about all the guns in MA come from NH. If more guns were such a problem, why does NH, ME and VT have FAR lower violent crime rates (like 3X lower) than neighboring MA with all of its gun control splendor? If their myth is true, one would imagine that the three northern NE states that have Constitutional Carry, would be cesspools of violent crime! When in fact, the opposite is true. These three states are 3 of the safest 5 states in the NATION, while MA's violent crime is 3X of those.
She will probably respond with another myth about all the guns in MA come from NH. If more guns were such a problem, why does NH, ME and VT have FAR lower violent crime rates (like 3X lower) than neighboring MA with all of its gun control splendor? If their myth is true, one would imagine that the three northern NE states that have Constitutional Carry, would be cesspools of violent crime! When in fact, the opposite is true. These three states are 3 of the safest 5 states in the NATION, while MA's violent crime is 3X of those.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,321
- Likes
- 108,754
demographics matter.
springfield/holyoke, fall river/new bedford, the Dot/Mattapan, Chelsea, Lynn, Lowell, Brockton, etc. If you filtered out the urban sewers, MA is probably safer.
I think that's exactly the point. It's not the gun laws that make the difference, it's economic issues.
Hawaii has a *higher* murder rate than NH, despite having NO NO NO NO NO NOT FOR ANYONE NO NO! gun laws.
I read an article in Money or US News or something that crime rate and credit score are inversely correlated: i.e. crime rates are higher where economic prosperity is lowest. (****in' duh, it's amazing that needs saying out loud.)
goodzilla
NES Member
So Martha is going to enforce the 1998 law...cause that's her job...but she's not going to enforce the law and indict and prosecute everyone that's been violating "the law" since 1998. Only in the socialist paradise of Massachusetts. I'd love her to answer how she squares that circle in her obtuse logic. It's the very definition of a reinterpretation. Traitor.
from my experience going to these events, it's the same problem, you guys are trying to appeal on fine logic and come out as a "gun owner" at which moment all moonbats in the room (99.99%) will see you as an NRA puppy rapist and sadistic baby killer.
1. You need to come as a moonbat (just like the rest of the sheep in the room) better if you are member of some protected class: non-white, gay, woman, illegal.
2. Argue on emotion and make other sheep feel like you do.
When GOAL came out with "Mora hurts families" it's actually not a bad strategy, not bad at all. Here is a good question in my opinion:
You may think that there is no question. You are correct. It's all emotional appeal that makes sheep scared because one of them is in danger, so they all feel the fear. Make that herd mentality work for you. When a protected class sheep doesn't feel safe, they all will shit depends on cue.
The only thing Mora fears is for her moonbat herd to turn away from her. That's her only pain point.
1. You need to come as a moonbat (just like the rest of the sheep in the room) better if you are member of some protected class: non-white, gay, woman, illegal.
2. Argue on emotion and make other sheep feel like you do.
When GOAL came out with "Mora hurts families" it's actually not a bad strategy, not bad at all. Here is a good question in my opinion:
You may think that there is no question. You are correct. It's all emotional appeal that makes sheep scared because one of them is in danger, so they all feel the fear. Make that herd mentality work for you. When a protected class sheep doesn't feel safe, they all will shit depends on cue.
The only thing Mora fears is for her moonbat herd to turn away from her. That's her only pain point.
MachineHead
NES Member
Boris, this was great! But it’s also true. This scenario presents the type of pro2A person we need in this state. Facts aren’t going to work in MA and need to be argued in terminology of the Left. They have no argument if you use their language against them.
Last edited:
you don't need arguments, you just need to make her look bad. Most gun people won't vote for her. If her core base of sheep starts to rumble, that's what will kill her. Other moonbats smelling blood in water entering the arena will be like Nader/Sanders/Perot flushing her chance to get re-elected by diluting mono-block of votes. Divided they fall.
Here are few other angles:
1.
2.
If there are no questions, there is nothing to deflect. Sheep will listen to any piper.
Here are few other angles:
1.
2.
If there are no questions, there is nothing to deflect. Sheep will listen to any piper.
dhuze
NES Member
Then you missed the part where she says she "believes strongly in the Constitution". What a lying ****.
Just to clarify - the question was asked by a member of the UMass Republican Club. I was not present in the 'event'. The videographer left the room shortly after as she could not take it any more. Maura even dodged questions about transgender protection.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,321
- Likes
- 108,754
Silly rabbit!
in dimple's fvcked up world view, public safety (the general welfare of the People) trumps any gunz freedoms.
So much for Article 17 of the Constitution that twat swore to uphold
Similar threads
