.

EddieCoyle said:
Why don't you look into Mr. Fisher's views before you talk shit?
Click to expand...

+1 I've been talking to family and friends about Fisher for months......most of them are willing to vote for him because they are sick of the shit sandwich closet democrat called Charlie Baker.

I've talked to other people that think derailing Tolman is a good idea and they are going to vote for Healey on the dem ticket. I can't say that's not a bad idea, Tolman is a ****ing asshat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
noxin said:
So, is this endorsement like how GOAL endorsed the recent legislation? Best we're going to get given the situation?
Click to expand...
If this is your view then you should be volunteering to go door to door for Fisher. All of the other options, including Baker are working directly against your interests where Fisher is a genuine supporter of 2A. "Not a I believe in 2A, but..."

Baker can't even fake it.

- - - Updated - - -

yanici said:
I can't understand how anyone would want to remotely give Tolman a chance to dictate to them. To count on the courts to keep him under control is a risky proposition and a lengthy proposition. Remember that he will be the top law enforcement official in the state and will have according privileges. Better to cut off the head before it happens. Amen.
Click to expand...
a. you are just choosing between 2 lethal snakes
b. This is a thread about Fisher, not the AG's office. [wink]
 
noxin said:
So, is this endorsement like how GOAL endorsed the recent legislation? Best we're going to get given the situation?
Click to expand...
Seems to me it is the exact opposite, assuming you feel that GOAL compromised too much in regard to the recent legislation.

Mark Fisher is a great pro-2A candidate for governor. This is the true believer's candidate, not a compromise candidate. I am not surprised at all that GOAL chose him as their guy because that's what GOAL is charged with doing, i.e., endorsing pro-2A candidates. That fact that he has no chance of winning does not affect who GOAL endorses and probably shouldn't affect who GOAL endorses.

The compromise governors candidate choice would have been Baker. He has a very good chance of winning this time around. But the purists don't feel he is solidly enough pro-2A while Mark Fisher is. I get that.

The problem comes in on the Dem side with multiple anti-2A candidates, two of them (Tolman for AG and Grossman for governor) radically, dangerously anti-2A. In combination, we can expect huge new trouble. What to do about that in the primaries is the big question.
 
I would rather see Fisher receive a large number of votes from 2A folks than them taking Dem ballots and voting against someone else. Taking Dem ballots will only boost their numbers and the winner, Tolman or not, will say look at all the votes I got, they don't gaf about you voting against someone else, just who you are voting for. It would also be easier, theoretically, to upset the Repub primary as it is a smaller pool of votes. As far as name recognition, being a major party candidate brings name recognition. Prior to their respective elections, who had heard of Coupe Deval or Granny Warren? Anyhow, it would be a better message to be sent if Mr. Fisher received a large number of votes. IMHO
 
Mike, in Utopia Mark Fisher might win. In MA, he stands as much chance as my winning the lottery that I don't even play! Even if everyone on NES were to vote for him, it still won't come close to changing the outcome.

Just because Fisher is on the ballot means nothing wrt "name recognition"! He needs that BEFORE people go to the polls and that is just not going to happen before November. If he's still in the game in November, he'll get my vote but for now there is a more important battle to fight.

So you'd prefer Tolman . . . who will certainly shut down all transfers of conventional guns by edict. MA courts will agree with him Comm2A files a case in USDC and it gets dicked around for 3-5 years before we get a win . . . but all those guns are now gone, dealers have closed up, etc.

Enjoy your Utopia, I'll live in the real world.
 
LenS said:
Mike, in Utopia Mark Fisher might win. In MA, he stands as much chance as my winning the lottery that I don't even play! Even if everyone on NES were to vote for him, it still won't come close to changing the outcome.

Just because Fisher is on the ballot means nothing wrt "name recognition"! He needs that BEFORE people go to the polls and that is just not going to happen before November. If he's still in the game in November, he'll get my vote but for now there is a more important battle to fight.

So you'd prefer Tolman . . . who will certainly shut down all transfers of conventional guns by edict. MA courts will agree with him Comm2A files a case in USDC and it gets dicked around for 3-5 years before we get a win . . . but all those guns are now gone, dealers have closed up, etc.

Enjoy your Utopia, I'll live in the real world.
Click to expand...

No you live in a world where you vote for the enemy. That's a world I refuse to live in.
 
Absolutely voting for Mr. Fisher, he needs as many votes as he can get... and Primarys are known for a light turnout.

No way i would vote for either of the two gun grabbers. That is tatamount to Richard Ross saying he Reserved His Right to allow the gun Bill out of Committee, when the vote needed to be a clear NO!

Folks that pull a Dem ballot to vote against Tolman - Whose to say that Healey does not do exactly what Tolman is suggesting? Her current stance is likely nothing more than creating a differential between herself and Tolman, to make him seem to be more of the extremist, while she remains the realist. They are both fighting to appeal to a base. No one should buy into any of either of their BS.
 
Short notice, I know, but I only just learned of it myself. Mark Fisher is scheduled to speak at the Westwood Library at 7pm tonight, 2014SEP04.

From Mr. Fisher's facebook (I hope it's ok to quote directly):
"Mark Fisher, candidate for Governor will be addressing the Westwood RTC in the Westwood Public Library, 660 High St. in Westwood at 7:00pm this evening.

Please come and listen to Mark address the RTC and ask him any questions that you may have regarding the issues facing our Commonwealth."
 
LenS said:
So you'd prefer Tolman . . . who will certainly shut down all transfers of conventional guns by edict. MA courts will agree with him Comm2A files a case in USDC and it gets dicked around for 3-5 years before we get a win . . . but all those guns are now gone, dealers have closed up, etc.
Click to expand...

I hope I'm not alone in thinking if this were to actually happen that it would literally be time to throw down. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm completely serious in saying I would walk in to his office and stand on top of his desk until he changed his mind. If I were removed from the premises (as I'm sure I would be, I would hope that there would be al least 20,000+ gun owners behind me, ready and willing to be the next to stand on his desk.

If you think 300,000+ gun owners will be content to sit by for 2-3 years and wait for the outcome of a court case in the event all handgun sales are effectively banned overnight, we might as well give up right now.

I'm not giving up, EVER!
 
I worked for Mark at a company called Anderson Products in 1996/1997. While I agree with many of his stated positions, I thought he was a douche when he was my boss. I would certainly vote for him over Marsha but wouldn't endorse him as the solution to all of our problems or even vouch for him to get him into my gun club. Of course this is my opinion, and you know what Harry Callahan would say about opinions.....
 
boatman said:
So win the battle, feel good about yourself while losing the war?

sent using tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's the other way... Assuming you are even able to vote for the "winner", you win the battle and lose the war because ultimately all politicians asymptotically approach tyrants unless you constantly push back and refuse to empower people headed that way.

This is how we got socialist McCain running against Communist Obama.
 
cekim said:
It's the other way... Assuming you are even able to vote for the "winner", you win the battle and lose the war because ultimately all politicians asymptotically approach tyrants unless you constantly push back and refuse to empower people headed that way.

This is how we got socialist McCain running against Communist Obama.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. Tea Party candidates have made inroads in some places around the country, why NOT here? If we all keep whining about how it'll never happen, it definitely won't. For my part, I just today picked up my Mark Fisher lawn sign (should have gotten it weeks ago). Got some spares as well in case any delinquents steal it (I live on main street).[wink]
 
Baker just shouldn't have run. If Mark was the only guy on the ballot in a primary, then got to the general election, he might be able to fire up enough republicans to actually get out and vote. Baker is boring, yawn... For me this primary will be about voting against Tolperson.
 
The only reason not to vote for the lesser of two evils is to demonstrate to the "lesser evil" that (s)he cannot count on your vote simply by being "less bad" that the other candidate. It's a matter of paying a short term price to make them listen.

The "lesser evil" approach is why even Republican governors who are generally "pro gun" feel they can do things like veto concealed carry laws; refuse to pardon a young black mother caught up in the system; and do absolutely nothing to advocate removal of gun laws already on the books.

The trick is identifying when the need to send the message is strong enough to pay the price of letting someone into office who may make gun control a key issue (s)he pushes, rather than something (s)he won't fight against.
 
I just read this thread cover to cover and I feel like we have the same conversation during every primary. There is one thing the DEMs do right, they organize and vote for who their "leader" tells them to. If we don't all do the same thing on election day, we might as well stay home and shellack the pizza paddle.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The only reason not to vote for the lesser of two evils is to demonstrate to the "lesser evil" that (s)he cannot count on your vote simply by being "less bad" that the other candidate. It's a matter of paying a short term price to make them listen.
Click to expand...
I get your point. And that's fine for you idealist "kids" who are willing to wait 4 or 5 years for a Federal court decision to hopefully reverse an insane person (Tolman) or wait multiple decades, if ever, for moonbat liberal Massachusetts to ever elect an acceptably strong (to NES/GOAL/Comm2A) pro-2A AG and pro-2A Governor and pro-2A legislature who will start to reverse and repeal our anti-2A laws. But some of us are old and we don't have that kind of time left to wait for these great things to start to happen. Perhaps I am thinking too selfishly here, but I am looking at the next couple of election cycles and doing everything I can realistically do to hold the line against the worst of the vocal, rabid gun-grabbing Dems... i.e, Tolman and Grossman.
 
As I said before:

The trick is identifying when the need to send the message is strong enough to pay the price of letting someone into office who may make gun control a key issue (s)he pushes, rather than something (s)he won't fight against.
Click to expand...

Another issue at stake in national elections is "House and Senate majority". Electing Brown rather than Warren would not have really helped with gun rights (the only difference in Warren would brag about her vote, and Brown would quietly vote against us), but help works towards a Senate majority - with the obvious impact on party line votes and committee assignments. I considered a Brown win important for this reason, even though he was certainly not on our side.
 
I'm telling you guys, Tolman is NOT going to beat Healey. Don't waste the primary vote trying to block Trollman.
 
I've been busy as hell lately and hadn't determined my voting strategy (other than knowing that Coakley, Grossman, Healey, Tolman and Baker all suck hard). I doubt they intended to do so, but WBUR convinced this independent to pull a R ballot and vote for Fisher.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/09/04/mark-fisher-profile
 
Last edited:
Mike S said:
I'm telling you guys, Tolman is NOT going to beat Healey. Don't waste the primary vote trying to block Trollman.
Click to expand...
With that kind of post, discouraging votes against the most rabid, vocal anti-gun candidate MA has ever seen, I hope to Hell GOAL knows something that I don't know. [thinking]
 
EJFudd said:
With that kind of post, discouraging votes against the most rabid, vocal anti-gun candidate MA has ever seen, I hope to Hell GOAL knows something that I don't know. [thinking]
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's the way things are in this state. You have a choice of voting against one of the worst moonbats we've seen to help a slightly lesser moonbat, or you can vote for a candidate for governor who truly respects your 2A rights (or at least claims to).

If it makes you feel better, Fisher's chances are pretty slim also and in the end, we'll probably all get the shaft regardless.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Just remember, if voting could make a real difference it would have been outlawed years ago.
Click to expand...
Well, they know so few people do it or do it right that they have nothing to worry about.

They have so effectively polarized and made binary the election process that it is nearly information free in terms of driving policy or their accumulation of power. That is what we are trying to explain to people WRT this "lesser evil" nonsense.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom