Who's still waiting in Everett MA

No offense, bender, but who says that you're always right?

I know of a story, where a psych nurse giving report at shift change said, "Ms. Nutball in room 6 is crazy...she thinks that there's centipedes crawling on the wall."

Another nurse said, "There are centipedes in that room."

It's a slightly humorous anecdote, but if hallucinating creepy-crawlies is cause for beinng locked in a psych ward....then you better make damn sure that there are no centipedes.

Your line about protecting some, by restricting the rights of others, is the grease on the slippery slope. If you add the word "reasonable", you're adding a shove, too.

To Jesse, or anyone else: Is there no crusading, muck-raking journalist that can be contacted to Shine the Light of Truth on the offending PD(s)? I mean, if a local PD is violating one State law, what else is going on? The news cycle from the State Drug Lab is winding down.....
 
Last edited:
MisterHappy said:
To Jesse, or anyone else: Is there no crusading, muck-raking journalist that can be contacted to Shine the Light of Truth on the offending PD(s)? I mean, if a local PD is violating one State law, what else is going on? The news cycle from the State Drug Lab is winding down.....
Click to expand...

There is that one guy who writes for the Globe who seems to be sympathetic to 2A causes. Can't think of his name right now. Jacobs?
 
Not meaning to cast it in a pro-2A light, but a "Police breaking the law with impunity" light.

When the cities that were charging in excess of the State-mandated fee for the LTC, they got off, and did not refund (afaik) the overpayments; here, people are following all the rules, and for some reason, the police, which should be bound by the same laws as we, are not.

Now....that's good television!

No slam to Jacoby, but I think that a "Me Team" or similar TV segment will stir up the can of worms more efficiently.

I don't know if it's a "bad" idea, but if several aggrieved parties were to call Susan Wornick, and show a pattern.....

Just thinking, with a keyboard......
 
Jesse C. Cohen said:
It's unbelievable what Everett is doing. Even other law enforcement agencies are shaking their heads in disgust. It is practices like these that take away from the many licensing officers in other departments who do their jobs with courtesy and efficiency.
Click to expand...

It could also be the case that some of them are concerned that situations like the one that exists in Everett, could have the potential of a legal or legislative response that would take away their discretionary powers... something they would be loathe to lose.

IIRC, this type of thing was addressed by the MCOPA a few years ago... overzealous police chiefs putting "may issue" at risk.
 
MisterHappy said:
No offense, bender, but who says that you're always right?

I know of a story, where a psych nurse giving report at shift change said, "Ms. Nutball in room 6 is crazy...she thinks that there's centipedes crawling on the wall."

Another nurse said, "There are centipedes in that room."

It's a slightly humorous anecdote, but if hallucinating creepy-crawlies is cause for beinng locked in a psych ward....then you better make damn sure that there are no centipedes.

Your line about protecting some, by restricting the rights of others, is the grease on the slippery slope. If you add the word "reasonable", you're adding a shove, too.

To Jesse, or anyone else: Is there no crusading, muck-raking journalist that can be contacted to Shine the Light of Truth on the offending PD(s)? I mean, if a local PD is violating one State law, what else is going on? The news cycle from the State Drug Lab is winding down.....
Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong. i did not say that. i said i am protecting MANY by restricting the rights of SOME. I am not "always" correct. But, life is an imperfect science.
 
bender73 said:
Actually, you are wrong. i did not say that. i said i am protecting MANY by restricting the rights of SOME. I am not "always" correct. But, life is an imperfect science.
Click to expand...

Here is the line I was referencing:

We have rights, absolutely. But we also have a duty to protect others and sometimes that means stepping on someone's rights.


At what point is the "protecting" of others worthy of stepping on someone's rights?

What you've just done, is described the "discretion" of a Chief that says, "I don't want a Dodge City" or "No LTC-A on first issue." There is no problem with someone's shirt, or being a falling-down drunk ( to use more of your examples), but both are "reasonable", from the point of view of a Chief.....yes?

In your response, you said MANY vs. SOME. ....What is the ratio? And what level of protection?

And, as to being right - what is the recourse of a person that you casued to be commtted, or confied, or put into chemical restraints, when you are not correct?


I'm not slamming you, but the attitude that an ill-defined, nebulous criteria can be used to restrict the rights of one, or many, based on the perception that in future, there is a chance of some potentially negative outcome.
 
i don't 100% disagree. i will say it again, i don't have all the answers. i am looking at things both as how they are and how they could be. i think the perfect system lies some place in the middle. currently, places like Everett are just making a mockery of an already flawed system, so flawed that they are not being held accountable. but, i also think we have to keep guns out of the hands of the nuts and there lies the problem. personal freedoms versus big GOV control. it is a debate that will go on for years, and has.

remember, i am NOT an advocate of the current system and i think 10 mag minimums and the AG's list is simply foolish. there is no logic behind those rules. zero. but, i think there has to be some thought about who actually is handed a gun. i would like to see some nationwide reasonable system that makes sense, is equally fair, and meets some place in the middle of MA and less restrictive states.

there should be no rules on the make/models.
 
bender73 said:
i don't 100% disagree. i will say it again, i don't have all the answers. i am looking at things both as how they are and how they could be. i think the perfect system lies some place in the middle. currently, places like Everett are just making a mockery of an already flawed system, so flawed that they are not being held accountable. but, i also think we have to keep guns out of the hands of the nuts and there lies the problem. personal freedoms versus big GOV control. it is a debate that will go on for years, and has.

remember, i am NOT an advocate of the current system and i think 10 mag minimums and the AG's list is simply foolish. there is no logic behind those rules. zero. but, i think there has to be some thought about who actually is handed a gun. i would like to see some nationwide reasonable system that makes sense, is equally fair, and meets some place in the middle of MA and less restrictive states.

there should be no rules on the make/models.
Click to expand...

I wonder how states like Arizona and Vermont manage to keep the blood from flowing in the streets, what with all of the "undesirables" (read: people with dark skin) who have access to guns.
 
jasons said:
I wonder how states like Arizona and Vermont manage to keep the blood from flowing in the streets, what with all of the "undesirables" (read: people with dark skin) who have access to guns.
Click to expand...

you are being extreme in your point. we will never have a system that is completely void of all control. period. i envision the best POSSIBLE system that takes into account everyone's view. remember, just because you 100% feel you are just in your views about freedom to have guns and the right to bear arms does not mean everyone shares your opinion. the "it is in the constitution" argument will never win a debate in this day and age. we are no longer revolutionary America, despite our wishes.

i may not like it either, but the most powerful weapon today is the mind, armed with a pen.
 
bender73 said:
you are being extreme in your point. we will never have a system that is completely void of all control. period. i envision the best POSSIBLE system that takes into account everyone's view. remember, just because you 100% feel you are just in your views about freedom to have guns and the right to bear arms does not mean everyone shares your opinion. the "it is in the constitution" argument will never win a debate in this day and age. we are no longer revolutionary America, despite our wishes.

i may not like it either, but the most powerful weapon today is the mind, armed with a pen.
Click to expand...


I'm not being extreme at all.

There is no permit required to buy or own a gun in most states and this invented epidemic of "crazy people with guns" just has not happened in a statistically significant way. There is evidence, however, that "suitability" rules have been and are used to discriminate against minorities and other "undesirables." Facts are stubborn things.

The best possible system can't take into account everyone's view because part of that "everyone" want all guns banned period.

My opinion is not any more relevant than yours, but the facts and the Constitution back me up on this one.

Anyway, even if you came up with the perfect foolproof permitting system criminals and inclined crazy people would steal, smuggle, or otherwise procure guns or other weapons to use in their crimes.
 
bender73 said:
Yes, when mental instability impairs one's judgement. Like serious mental illness, dementia, past brain trauma, age-related conditions, etc.
Click to expand...

Who determines "serious mental illness" on a case-by-case basis? An LEO doing implicit chart review, applying his vast clinical knowledge?
 
bender73 said:
Yes, when mental instability impairs one's judgement. Like serious mental illness, dementia, past brain trauma, age-related conditions, etc.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is our rights are subject to approval. That's reassuring. The right to self defense is an innate human right. The only people who would deny this, are those who would claim that one category of people have a different set of human rights than all the others.
 
you guys need to slow down. in a vacuum, a utopian vision, everyone would have rights. the REALITY is that we, as a society, decide who has rights. i am not making this crap up so don't blame me! if we had no checks and balances, there would be chaos. if you want that then you are making us (me included) sound like gun-crazed nuts. heck, i am still waiting for my LTC!

serious mental illness HAS TO BE DETERMINED. it is that simple. i am not saying i have the answer, in fact, i have said that many times up to this point. but, all i am getting back is the constitution thrown in my face. folks, that is fantasy land. i am just being honest about today's social and political world. it is a complex issue. Throw HIPPA in the mix and the waters get even more muddy.

but, put simply, we have to have some regulatory system in place to protect our families, children, etc.

...and again, i am not siding with MA as it works today
 
bender73 said:
you guys need to slow down. in a vacuum, a utopian vision, everyone would have rights. the REALITY is that we, as a society, decide who has rights. i am not making this crap up so don't blame me! if we had no checks and balances, there would be chaos. if you want that then you are making us (me included) sound like gun-crazed nuts. heck, i am still waiting for my LTC!

serious mental illness HAS TO BE DETERMINED. it is that simple. i am not saying i have the answer, in fact, i have said that many times up to this point. but, all i am getting back is the constitution thrown in my face. folks, that is fantasy land. i am just being honest about today's social and political world. it is a complex issue. Throw HIPPA in the mix and the waters get even more muddy.

but, put simply, we have to have some regulatory system in place to protect our families, children, etc.

...and again, i am not siding with MA as it works today
Click to expand...



No, "we, as a society" do not decide who has rights. Free people are born with rights. (Or "endowed by their Creator" if you prefer.) That's where you're getting off track, back up to that spot and start over.
 
bender73 said:
you guys need to slow down. in a vacuum, a utopian vision, everyone would have rights. the REALITY is that we, as a society, decide who has rights. i am not making this crap up so don't blame me! if we had no checks and balances, there would be chaos. if you want that then you are making us (me included) sound like gun-crazed nuts. heck, i am still waiting for my LTC!

serious mental illness HAS TO BE DETERMINED. it is that simple. i am not saying i have the answer, in fact, i have said that many times up to this point. but, all i am getting back is the constitution thrown in my face. folks, that is fantasy land. i am just being honest about today's social and political world. it is a complex issue. Throw HIPPA in the mix and the waters get even more muddy.

but, put simply, we have to have some regulatory system in place to protect our families, children, etc.

...and again, i am not siding with MA as it works today
Click to expand...

I think your argument boils down to "we have to do something, even we know it won't work."

Imagine this...

For a large representative sample of new LTC applicants, the licensing officer is asked to examine all medical/criminal records of the applicant and rate how likely he is to "misuse" his gun. At the end of five years, the researcher determines whether each applicant has actually misused a gun or not. What would be your prediction for the analysis... was the licensing officer's ability to discriminate between high and low-risk applicants any better than chance?
 
bender73 said:
the REALITY is that we, as a society, decide who has rights.

if we had no checks and balances, there would be chaos.


but, put simply, we have to have some regulatory system in place to protect our families, children, etc.
Click to expand...

1. No. You are wrong. We as a society do not decide who has rights.

2. Where's the chaos in Vermont?

3. What your saying is concerning because we know what happens when some unaccountable bureaucrat is given the authority to decide the "rights" of citizens – history shows us this. Look at China for example. Yet they always use public safety as their justification. All of this is nothing but another way the government will seek to use healthcare in an attempt to restrict our rights. This idea that we can accurately predict who will and won’t commit crime before they actually do is completely irrational. By what right can you, me, or anyone deny someone a right based on pure speculation? See the problem here?
 
jasons said:
back up to that spot and start over.
Click to expand...

don't talk to me directly like that.

i agree we are BORN with certain rights. but, i was commenting that we, as a society actually decide. i am speaking as to what is REALITY today, not what we think it should be. you are misunderstanding my post.
 
bender73 said:
don't talk to me directly like that.

i agree we are BORN with certain rights. but, i was commenting that we, as a society actually decide. i am speaking as to what is REALITY today, not what we think it should be. you are misunderstanding my post.
Click to expand...

Shall I talk to you indirectly? Ok...

Someone tell bender73 that he should go back to Sponge Bob.

I'm not misunderstanding anything.
 
KDeez said:
1. No. You are wrong. We as a society do not decide who has rights.

2. Where's the chaos in Vermont?

3. What your saying is concerning because we know what happens when some unaccountable bureaucrat is given the authority to decide the "rights" of citizens – history shows us this. Look at China for example. Yet they always use public safety as their justification. All of this is nothing but another way the government will seek to use healthcare in an attempt to restrict our rights. This idea that we can accurately predict who will and won’t commit crime before they actually do is completely irrational. By what right can you, me, or anyone deny someone a right based on pure speculation? See the problem here?
Click to expand...

1. i am not wrong. we just disagree.

2. ?

3. you are blowing up one issue about competence of certain people with illness into a lecture about communist China? uhh, no. i am so far away from that. seriously. but, i do get what you are saying.

- - - Updated - - -

jasons said:
Shall I talk to you indirectly? Ok...

Someone tell bender73 that he should go back to Sponge Bob.

I'm not misunderstanding anything.
Click to expand...

you are crossing the line and i have not. enough please. i was in a friendly debate.
 
bender73 said:
you are crossing the line and i have not. enough please. i was in a friendly debate.
Click to expand...

Pointing our where your logic is flawed is "crossing the line?" Are you sure you're in the right place?
 
bender73 said:
don't talk to me directly like that.

i agree we are BORN with certain rights. but, i was commenting that we, as a society actually decide. i am speaking as to what is REALITY today, not what we think it should be. you are misunderstanding my post.
Click to expand...

So let me better understand your reality before I jump to conclusions. Society is actually God and they get to decide people's rights?
 
i guess i am not in the right place. i was trying to shed some light on my experience and beliefs about mental competence, etc. i do have a great deal of experience on the matter. feel free to think i am wrong. good day.

- - - Updated - - -

KDeez said:
So let me better understand your reality before I jump to conclusions. Society is actually God and they get to decide people's rights?
Click to expand...

i have to get ready for work. i cannot elaborate. but no, i do not think society has that much power. i was not talking about everyone. we were discussing mentally unstable folks.
 
bender73 said:
i guess i am not in the right place. i was trying to shed some light on my experience and beliefs about mental competence, etc. i do have a great deal of experience on the matter. feel free to think i am wrong. good day.
Click to expand...

In your world, who would get to decide who is mentally competent? Would we be assumed to be incompetent and forced to beg for our rights, or would we be assumed competent and have our rights revoked only after some sort of deliberation? Who would do the deliberation? What rights of due process would the "incompetent" have, if any? Would this "competence" standard apply to all of our rights or just a select few? If you could share some of your extensive experience by answering a few of these questions, maybe we could have a real discussion?
 

Similar threads

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
242
dfritz
D
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
214
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
MA compliant uppers - in Mil or shipped to MA
2
Replies
30
Views
876
Lxpony
Lxpony
Turkey Hunting in MA
Replies
29
Views
583
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Are lower 80% prohibited in MA...yet?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Back
Top Bottom