Crazy MA Anti-Gun Legislation, Did it pass or fail?

[westwall]

Typical rhetoric... I admit a conflict of emotions on an issue and you choose to make it a left/right thing. Hope you're proud. I'm a country boy... I have weapons. I don't even lock my doors at night or when I go to work. Don't need to. I even have my late father's WWII Walther P38.

Don't sit there and make me out to be liberal on this subject. I am firmly in the middle and leaning right. so go fuck yourself.

I'm not trying to make you out to be anything. We now have a government that thinks it can tell people when they've made enough money, should pay a higher percentage of income in taxes because they happen to be successful, and trying to demonize anyone that has accumulated some wealth. Guns are my hobby. I collect some of the old military rifles. The first time I fired an assault weapon was the m16 in the A.F. and just loved it. The M60 and M79grenade launcher also. I don't think any weapons should be banned. Only the illegal use of those weapons should be banned. Law abiding Americans should be able to own any firearms they want as long as they are used legally

Let me tell you something Slick... when the rest of the country is SUFFERING because of it... yeah... I think it's fair to say when "enough is enough". That's what your side DOESN'T get... when IS enough enough? I am of the opinion that when profits cause suffering with the vast majority of the people, and the wealthy are raking in money like never before?... then the rich have OVERSTEPPED their bounds.

But that has NOTHING to do with Gun Control, does it? Here's MY take on Gun Control... anything that is a CURRENTLY or recently used Military weapon... should be REGULATED... NOT BANNED, but regulated. Perhaps a special Collector's license.... is my line of thinking... not that you can't own them... but you need a special license with increased criteria than a regular firearm.

But yeah.. I know.. .for some of you... it's the same thing as a ban... for the rest of us? it's more a matter of a realistic view of our society.

One day I would love to see the rich say screw it and just leave. You all would starve.

 

[Steelplate]

I'm not trying to make you out to be anything. We now have a government that thinks it can tell people when they've made enough money, should pay a higher percentage of income in taxes because they happen to be successful, and trying to demonize anyone that has accumulated some wealth. Guns are my hobby. I collect some of the old military rifles. The first time I fired an assault weapon was the m16 in the A.F. and just loved it. The M60 and M79grenade launcher also. I don't think any weapons should be banned. Only the illegal use of those weapons should be banned. Law abiding Americans should be able to own any firearms they want as long as they are used legally

Let me tell you something Slick... when the rest of the country is SUFFERING because of it... yeah... I think it's fair to say when "enough is enough". That's what your side DOESN'T get... when IS enough enough? I am of the opinion that when profits cause suffering with the vast majority of the people, and the wealthy are raking in money like never before?... then the rich have OVERSTEPPED their bounds.

But that has NOTHING to do with Gun Control, does it? Here's MY take on Gun Control... anything that is a CURRENTLY or recently used Military weapon... should be REGULATED... NOT BANNED, but regulated. Perhaps a special Collector's license.... is my line of thinking... not that you can't own them... but you need a special license with increased criteria than a regular firearm.

But yeah.. I know.. .for some of you... it's the same thing as a ban... for the rest of us? it's more a matter of a realistic view of our society.

One day I would love to see the rich say screw it and just leave. You all would starve.

That would be wonderfuckingful!!!! Seriously.. don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out. Let them move to China and Mexico. Let them take their Citizenship with them. We'll fucking rebuild... in an atmosphere of reasonable fairness and cooperation... with REAL competition and NO Washington buyouts that only benefit them.

As it stands now... there is no free market... there is no real competition. The big boys have all the power because of 30+ years of Reaganomics, Bushanomics, and yes... even Clintonomics... followed By BushII and Obama.

I'd absolutely LOVE them to join their socialistic and Communistic Brethren.

 

[JohnA]

Better that than allow people on the Watch List to purchase firearms. There is no good reason for the Republicans not to vote for such a bill, except fear of the NRA lobby.

Oh, there are plenty of good reasons INCLUDING fear of the NRA (as they should have). Gun ownership is a RIGHT, flying is a PRIVILEGE. The ability to deny an individual a firearm should be much more difficult than keeping people from flying.

Most people need the right to travel. Very few people need to purchase a firearm.

who are you to tell me what my needs are ?

more liberal crap

 

[westwall]

It doesn't matter. It's like saying the Internet ought not to be subject to the 1A because the Founders couldn't foresee computers. It's bullshit.

Of course it is but it's all they have. They don't care about rights of the individual, they only care about their collectivist nirvana and they'll kill anyone who stands in their way....as soon as they can get those damn guns away from them!

So what you are saying is that Ordinary Citizens ought to have access to Nuclear weapons.

You guys allways crack me up! Of course I don't. However out of the 3 million or so legal fully automatic machineguns that are owned by civilians only one has ever been used in a crime...and that was a off duty policeman who did the crime.

As was stated previously. Punish the criminal misuse of firearms to the maximum (something the libs never do because it is allways "societies fault" that the little lad did those horrible crimes) and you will find that violent crime will nearly disappear. You see criminologists know that roughly 8% of the criminal population commits around 80% of the violent crime. Keep them locked up and you don't have much to worry about.

However, as we all know, those are the very people that the courts let loose on society all the time.

 

[westwall]

Let me tell you something Slick... when the rest of the country is SUFFERING because of it... yeah... I think it's fair to say when "enough is enough". That's what your side DOESN'T get... when IS enough enough? I am of the opinion that when profits cause suffering with the vast majority of the people, and the wealthy are raking in money like never before?... then the rich have OVERSTEPPED their bounds.

But that has NOTHING to do with Gun Control, does it? Here's MY take on Gun Control... anything that is a CURRENTLY or recently used Military weapon... should be REGULATED... NOT BANNED, but regulated. Perhaps a special Collector's license.... is my line of thinking... not that you can't own them... but you need a special license with increased criteria than a regular firearm.

But yeah.. I know.. .for some of you... it's the same thing as a ban... for the rest of us? it's more a matter of a realistic view of our society.

One day I would love to see the rich say screw it and just leave. You all would starve.

That would be wonderfuckingful!!!! Seriously.. don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out. Let them move to China and Mexico. Let them take their Citizenship with them. We'll fucking rebuild... in an atmosphere of reasonable fairness and cooperation... with REAL competition and NO Washington buyouts that only benefit them.

As it stands now... there is no free market... there is no real competition. The big boys have all the power because of 30+ years of Reaganomics, Bushanomics, and yes... even Clintonomics... followed By BushII and Obama.

I'd absolutely LOVE them to join their socialistic and Communistic Brethren.

This country would collapse in months. You guys can't run your own household and you think you could run the country?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gun Control.... I have mixed emotions about it. First off... I don't think anyone needs an AK or an M14. Those are military class weapons and I am fine with regulation(not bans) on those types of weapons.

Handguns... I am a little more liberal with. I think that anyone has the right to defend themselves. I don't agree with the 30 round clips that were used in the Gabby Gifford shooting... that goes way beyond self defense. Furthermore... handguns are a poor tool for home defense. Unless you are a skilled shooter and a pretty cool customer, you are more likely to miss... which in one sense is probably OK as it will scare the piss out of most would be home invaders. On the other hand, if you meet up with a true scumbag... you are more than likely going to pay for your shitty shooting.

The best home defense tool is a shotgun. It's a "point and shoot" device. A good compromise between the two is a Taurus Judge. Which can shoot .410 shotgun shells and/or .45 Colt rounds. But if you have any experience with the .410... it would be a close range option only.

Anyway... the point is that there is no real reason for people to go Rambo with their arsenals. Anything you can buy in a department store is plenty of firepower. Because, let's face it... If you were ever to go against the military... you are fucked.... so that's really a non-issue. Even if you owned an AK with the firing pin fixed to allow full auto.... you're still fucked.

Gun Control.... I have mixed emotions about it. First off... I don't think anyone needs an AK or an M14. Those are military class weapons and I am fine with regulation(not bans) on those types of weapons.

What weapons do you think the superme court ruled were protected by thge second amendment?

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)
LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 445 U. S. 55 :: Volume 445 :: 1980 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

The very weapons you think people shouldn't have.

Who said I think that? oh... that's right... you.

Here's what you posted

Gun Control.... I have mixed emotions about it. First off... I don't think anyone needs an AK or an M14. Those are military class weapons and I am fine with regulation(not bans) on those types of weapons.

You are saying you think people shouldn't have them because you don't think there is any need of them in the civilian community.

The Superme Court has ruled if a weapon does not have any military value it's not protected by the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

maybe every law and Amendment that was not written by a quill on parchment should be made vold because the founders never thought we would use anything else

True – like the right to privacy.

What weapons do you think the superme court ruled were protected by thge second amendment?

Handguns:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

District of Columbia v Heller (2008)

Remember also the Second Amendment protects the right to self defense, where the handgun is the preferred means to realize that end.

Heller vs. D.C. didn't over turn Lewis vs. U.S. try again
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)

True – like the right to privacy.

The right to privacy is as old as the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[NoNukes]

No one has a "right to fly".
But if you want to challenge the gov't for putting people on an arbitrary list go right ahead.

I notice you avoided answering the question.

People need to travel, very few people need a gun, period. You avoided my question on why I should be scrutinized when I have not even been accused of a crime.

They need to travel. They don't need to fly there.
Owning and carrying a firearm is protected by the US Constitution explicitly.

I dont think there is a good reason you need to be scrutinized and barred. But I didnt make up the rules.

So is abortion, but that does not stop those on the right from denying it.

Although you and I do not agree, I respect your answers.

 

[tonystewart1]

The best home defense tool is a shotgun. It's a "point and shoot" device. A good compromise between the two is a Taurus Judge. Which can shoot .410 shotgun shells and/or .45 Colt rounds. But if you have any experience with the .410... it would be a close range option only.

I got the Judge a few months ago. That is one fun gun to shoot. I keep a slightly "modified" 12 guage here at the house for home defense.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

thanks

You're welcome. As a fellow MA gun owner, we have to stick together. You REALLY need to get hooked up with GOAL (Gun Owner's Action League). They are really the one group that has its fingers on the pulse of what's happening on Capital Hill AND Beacon Hill. Most if not all of the legislation you mentioned is listed on their website on the Legislation Chart.

I will check them out. I've been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what is going on from govt websites and local media.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Gun Control.... I have mixed emotions about it. First off... I don't think anyone needs an AK or an M14. Those are military class weapons and I am fine with regulation(not bans) on those types of weapons.

Handguns... I am a little more liberal with. I think that anyone has the right to defend themselves. I don't agree with the 30 round clips that were used in the Gabby Gifford shooting... that goes way beyond self defense. Furthermore... handguns are a poor tool for home defense. Unless you are a skilled shooter and a pretty cool customer, you are more likely to miss... which in one sense is probably OK as it will scare the piss out of most would be home invaders. On the other hand, if you meet up with a true scumbag... you are more than likely going to pay for your shitty shooting.

The best home defense tool is a shotgun. It's a "point and shoot" device. A good compromise between the two is a Taurus Judge. Which can shoot .410 shotgun shells and/or .45 Colt rounds. But if you have any experience with the .410... it would be a close range option only.

Anyway... the point is that there is no real reason for people to go Rambo with their arsenals. Anything you can buy in a department store is plenty of firepower. Because, let's face it... If you were ever to go against the military... you are fucked.... so that's really a non-issue. Even if you owned an AK with the firing pin fixed to allow full auto.... you're still fucked.

With this kind of thinking you shouldn't be able to buy more car than you need, have more house than you need or make more money than you need. We don't live in a country where the government decides what you need. You should be able to decide what you need and as long as you use it legally it's nobody's business but your own.

^^ that is called liberty good sir!

 

[Steelplate]

What weapons do you think the superme court ruled were protected by thge second amendment?

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)
LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 445 U. S. 55 :: Volume 445 :: 1980 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

The very weapons you think people shouldn't have.

Who said I think that? oh... that's right... you.

Here's what you posted

Gun Control.... I have mixed emotions about it. First off... I don't think anyone needs an AK or an M14. Those are military class weapons and I am fine with regulation(not bans) on those types of weapons.

You are saying you think people shouldn't have them because you don't think there is any need of them in the civilian community.

The Superme Court has ruled if a weapon does not have any military value it's not protected by the second amendment.

Show me where I said bans.... I specifically put in parentheses (NOT BANS) in my original post, you Nutjob! Do you bother to read an entire post, or do you always stop at a sentence that you don't agree with?

Again... I DON'T think anyone needs an AK or an M14. However, I do realize that we live in America. so I suggested a COMPROMISE.. you know.... that's where two sides come to the center and find a place where they can agree... look up the word sometime... it seems to be lost in the right wing vocabulary.

 

[cutter]

The best home defense tool is a shotgun. It's a "point and shoot" device. A good compromise between the two is a Taurus Judge. Which can shoot .410 shotgun shells and/or .45 Colt rounds. But if you have any experience with the .410... it would be a close range option only.

I got the Judge a few months ago. That is one fun gun to shoot. I keep a slightly "modified" 12 guage here at the house for home defense.

The Judge would be great but of course it's illegal in Kalifornia.

 

[The Rabbi]

People need to travel, very few people need a gun, period. You avoided my question on why I should be scrutinized when I have not even been accused of a crime.

They need to travel. They don't need to fly there.
Owning and carrying a firearm is protected by the US Constitution explicitly.

I dont think there is a good reason you need to be scrutinized and barred. But I didnt make up the rules.

So is abortion, but that does not stop those on the right from denying it.

Although you and I do not agree, I respect your answers.

The right to keep and bear arms is specifically in the Second Amendment.
WHich article or amendment contains the right to abortion?

 

[The Rabbi]

The best home defense tool is a shotgun. It's a "point and shoot" device. A good compromise between the two is a Taurus Judge. Which can shoot .410 shotgun shells and/or .45 Colt rounds. But if you have any experience with the .410... it would be a close range option only.

I got the Judge a few months ago. That is one fun gun to shoot. I keep a slightly "modified" 12 guage here at the house for home defense.

The Judge would be great but of course it's illegal in Kalifornia.

Probably not a bad thing.
I think it's a gimmick and I don't stock them. Check the website Box O' Truth for their testing of the gun.

I have a 20ga pump at home and a few handguns. At the shop it's a Beretta 1200 12ga.
In TN we can have pretty much whatever we want. And I don't notice that shootings are any higher than in, say, Detroit. Memphis sucks but that has to do with the population, not the number of guns.

 

[Steelplate]

Rabbi,

When you say "population" do you mean the number of people, or the type of population... just curious.

Because, if you mean the number of people, I will agree with you. The more people you have, the more people that are likely out of work and are struggling. Poverty breeds crime.

 

[cutter]

I got the Judge a few months ago. That is one fun gun to shoot. I keep a slightly "modified" 12 guage here at the house for home defense.

The Judge would be great but of course it's illegal in Kalifornia.

Probably not a bad thing.
I think it's a gimmick and I don't stock them. Check the website Box O' Truth for their testing of the gun.

I have a 20ga pump at home and a few handguns. At the shop it's a Beretta 1200 12ga.
In TN we can have pretty much whatever we want. And I don't notice that shootings are any higher than in, say, Detroit. Memphis sucks but that has to do with the population, not the number of guns.

It's probably not an efficient weapon for self defense but the fact that this state tells you that you can not have one while they are legal everywhere else just makes you want one more.

 

[AmericanFirst]

What would the Founding Fathers do? In their day, every gun fired a single shot, was muzzle loaded and hand crafted. Maybe it's time to go back to the Founding Father's ideas when they wrote the second amendment. Because if they ever saw an AK-47 or an Uzi ravish a dwelling during a drive by shooting, I'm pretty certain they would have re-thought gun control.

The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with what type of weapon. It was written to protect the citizens from a totalitarian gov'. Of course the socialists know this so they want to take our guns. Idiots.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Anyone care to discuss how ridiculous all these laws are (or how smart if you think they are smart)

HUH?

Gun control is very effective......don't believe me.....ask the Mexicans.

.

Yeah, effective for socialists.

 

[NoNukes]

They need to travel. They don't need to fly there.
Owning and carrying a firearm is protected by the US Constitution explicitly.

I dont think there is a good reason you need to be scrutinized and barred. But I didnt make up the rules.

So is abortion, but that does not stop those on the right from denying it.

Although you and I do not agree, I respect your answers.

The right to keep and bear arms is specifically in the Second Amendment.
WHich article or amendment contains the right to abortion?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of it, just as they did about the second amendment. And the second Amendment is interpreted in different ways.