Boston billboard pins crimes on Vermont guns

[drgrant]

Anybody know if this is true ? How would a law like this serve the good od the public ? The only reason I could see for a law such as this to exist is to support a propaganda machine.

I don't know what "law" they're talking about, frankly. If the BATFE is the
entity that regulates this data, then it's likely a matter of "turf defense" or
somesuch. It might be a blanket federal law that protects certain records
produced or collected.... eg, tax records, etc.... in which case, asking
for its repeal is tantamount to a "special exception" which villifies
gun owners.

I agree that it would only be used for propoganda, considering that
the data could even be skewed by demographics.... example- A "crime
gun" is found to have originated from GA. But the data may not tell
someone wether it was "strawed" or stolen from some guy's house... so
even in a perfect world, where all the dealers are hyper-compliant with these
horrible laws, the anti-gun retards will still be pointing fingers at gun friendly
states, because if a given state has more guns/capita in it, that means
that a higher # will come from there. This means that even given
stricter laws, a place like GA would always come up on the list, because
every fifth person there might have a gun, whereas in mass that number
might be 1 in 50.

 

[drgrant]

Just wait and see what happens if a democrat is elected governor here in November...oh boy, the fun is really going to begin then! There will be nothing to stop them from going as far as they want at that point.

I disagree.... what has romney done for us? Almost
nothing.... he signed a couple of marginally pro-gun bills at essentially
zero political cost or risk. I haven't seen him stand up for us at
all.

I'm not saying a democrap will be better, thats for sure... but the republican
party in this state is only marginally better, because they have to water down
their "agenda" so much to even appear remotely viable. When you have
a "republican" supporting socialized medicine (romney) thats a sign that
the party is almost meaningless. It wouldnt surprise me even if there
were a lot of republicans in MA legislative capability that some of them would
be taking a rather "Arlen Sphincter" type existence.

The only thing that keeps this place from getting worse is that outside of
the 128 loop, the politicos don't have as much of a gun control fetish- it's
not a hot-button thing for them. And to the voters "out here" gun control
is not an issue that they're all that concerned about... all it can really do
is lose votes, not win them.

That's the big problem in MA... maybe 10 big cities determine the political
bend of the entire state, and everyone else gets screwed, just like CA... (although
CA is worse, because of the gerrymandering and such.... )

-Mike

 

[KMaurer]

California really got screwed when the USSC insisted that all state legislatures be districted according to population size. Before that ruling, every state except Nebraska had a bicameral legislature, with the state senate districted by political subdivisions, usually counties, without any regard to population (i.e., exactly like the US Congress). Prior to that ruling, nothing could get through the California legislature that seriously offended either the populated urban areas or the large rural areas. Every since, there have been a few urban areas along the coast that have absolute control of the whole state, even more so than the inside 128 cabal in the Mass legislature. (Envision what it would be like if you were to take the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, combe them into groups of 6-8 contigous jurisdictions, and giving each one a single state senator. There would be no way for Boston to shove the kind of crap down our throats that they do now.) Thanks, guys.

Ken