Charlie Baker on 2A

johnnymac101 said:
Regardless of the outcome, we know there may be a need for more Pro 2A marches on the Statehouse.
Time to get our rally flags and unifying t-shirts in order now!
Besides, hang one of these on the front porch next to Old Glory and its better than any home defense system money can buy!

View attachment 117709
Click to expand...
Need on of those for the front porch next to Old Glory and Gadsen Flag
 
I swear tonight there was a Baker ad saying he supports a ban on assault weapons, etc.

Last week, our club voted to put his signs up on club property, after the president said he is the only way to win and he supports us.
 
Coyote33 said:
I swear tonight there was a Baker ad saying he supports a ban on assault weapons, etc.s.
Click to expand...
From his org or a PAC?

A PAC ran an ad saying that Seth Moulton received money from a PAC that supports the NRA. The truth has gotten mighty "stretchy" this campaign season last night.

Anyone,watch the debate?
 
I actually watched the debate - two clowns fighting to see who could be more retarded.

Baker is clearly the better executive but he will not get anything done because he is also clearly used to having his orders followed versus having to play quid pro quo gymnastics.

The only point made perfectly clear is that Coakley is going to raise taxes and it's going to hurt. Her "rolling out the red carpet" comment isn't going to be a welcome mat for business; it's going to be a spill control pad for all the blood.

Charlie - incentivize getting someone off the dole (we pay the incentive)
Coakley - he laid people off from a bankrupt company and got paid 1.7 MILLION dollars
 
Last edited:
Coakley said volumes with her non reply to being asked about what she would have done at Harvard Pilgrim.

She is 100% unqualified to run this state.

If she gets elected, then the dumb-ionization of America has succeeded.

Did you hear the democratic pundit who said "There is the angry Charlie again"......it's bot anger, it's PASSION. Something that Coakley does not have.
 
Well, as usual, I'm going to hold my nose and vote, in this case for Baker.

The best reason is to prove to Coakley that law-abiding gun owners turn out in large numbers to defeat a candidate that has so abridged their rights. So, you think she'll take up - knitting? Bird watching? Travel?

From the Herald:

Labor leaders lining up behind Democratic gubernatorial nominee Martha Coakley admit they’ve gotten a late start on their normally well-oiled push toward Election Day.

Comparing union organizing this fall to Elizabeth Warren’s 2012 campaign, Frank Callahan, president of Massachusetts Building Trades Council, said Coakley will be able to lean on more than 1,000 volunteers over the next week in her heated race with Baker, with so-called labor walks — door-to-door contact with union members — kicking off nightly in Boston and beyond.

But with just days left before the Nov. 4 vote, the push has come a “little later” this fall, Callahan said, in part because of a hotly contested primary that split union support and delayed a coordinated push until recent weeks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If gun owners are very loud and vocal about getting out the vote to crush Coakely's anti-gun agenda, then regardless of Baker's position, the message will be clear.
The problem is getting enough people with a voice out there screaming it - GOAL and every single sportsmans club should have the media's phones tied up from now to election day and beyond.
 
pastera said:
If gun owners are very loud and vocal about getting out the vote to crush Coakely's anti-gun agenda, then regardless of Baker's position, the message will be clear.
The problem is getting enough people with a voice out there screaming it - GOAL and every single sportsmans club should have the media's phones tied up from now to election day and beyond.
Click to expand...

GOAL is helping to organize a phone bank for statewide 2A candidates.
Come on up to 352 Main st in Athol on Wednesday 10/29(Tomorrow) from 3-6 to help out.
 
Coyote33 said:
I swear tonight there was a Baker ad saying he supports a ban on assault weapons, etc.

Last week, our club voted to put his signs up on club property, after the president said he is the only way to win and he supports us.
Click to expand...

I saw this article where Baker is talking about the ad from Coakley that accuses him of not supporting the AWB.

Baker was asked about the ad Wednesday morning at an event on urban policy in Boston.

"That super PAC ad was stunning in some respects. I supported the assault weapons ban here in Massachusetts. I supported the gun legislation that was recently enacted on Beacon Hill. I would be an enthusiastic implementer of that reform as well," Baker told The Republican's Shira Schoenberg.

"I’m particularly excited about the part of that that finally created a statewide task force to deal with illegal gun trafficking which, for anybody in this room in one of these communities, they know how ignored that’s been as an issue for a really long period of time. I’m thrilled to have the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg who’s one of the most significant gun control advocates in the United States," he continued.
Click to expand...

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/republican_charlie_baker_defen.html
 
FSTC said:
GOAL is helping to organize a phone bank for statewide 2A candidates.
Come on up to 352 Main st in Athol on Wednesday 10/29(Tomorrow) from 3-6 to help out.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's an almost two hour drive each way for me and I would have to take a half day at work (adding another 45 minutes to get there)
 
Baker was asked about the ad Wednesday morning at an event on urban policy in Boston.

"That super PAC ad was stunning in some respects. I supported the assault weapons ban here in Massachusetts. I supported the gun legislation that was recently enacted on Beacon Hill. I would be an enthusiastic implementer of that reform as well," Baker told The Republican's Shira Schoenberg.

"I’m particularly excited about the part of that that finally created a statewide task force to deal with illegal gun trafficking which, for anybody in this room in one of these communities, they know how ignored that’s been as an issue for a really long period of time. I’m thrilled to have the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg who’s one of the most significant gun control advocates in the United States," he continued.

But.. But... he's a Republican and wayyyy better than Martha on 2A [puke]
 
Dadstoys said:
Baker was asked about the ad Wednesday morning at an event on urban policy in Boston.

"That super PAC ad was stunning in some respects. I supported the assault weapons ban here in Massachusetts. I supported the gun legislation that was recently enacted on Beacon Hill. I would be an enthusiastic implementer of that reform as well," Baker told The Republican's Shira Schoenberg.

"I’m particularly excited about the part of that that finally created a statewide task force to deal with illegal gun trafficking which, for anybody in this room in one of these communities, they know how ignored that’s been as an issue for a really long period of time. I’m thrilled to have the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg who’s one of the most significant gun control advocates in the United States," he continued.

But.. But... he's a Republican and wayyyy better than Martha on 2A [puke]
Click to expand...
We have a two party system. Sitting,at home does not do us any good.

Pretty sick and tired of people here whining instead of taking political action - any action. Bitching among the like-minded does absolutely nothing. Don't like Baker's position? Write him a letter. Send him an email. Call his campaign. Or do what I did: speak to him in person.
 
nes said:
Actually, (D's) outnumber (R'S) in MA, plain and simple. To attract the swing (D"s)+(I"s) voters CharlieBaker has to remain vocally neutral on many things that happen ONLY with a wink and a nod, if it even takes a wink and a nod. [wink] Its Baker or Coakley, which do you prefer? VOTE ACCORDINGLY!
Click to expand...
Neutral? Vocally?

He is neither on guns. He is actively against our civil rights and not afraid to share...

and worrying about Coakly or Baker right now is pointless - we've already lost this election cycle as we will have one of two anti-civil rights losers in office no matter what. So, consider that if you tolerate anti-civil rights losers soaking up your vote for fear of an even bigger 'nozzle, then you will get anti-civil rights losers as options for future representation.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
 
garandman said:
We have a two party system. Sitting,at home does not do us any good.

Pretty sick and tired of people here whining instead of taking political action - any action. Bitching among the like-minded does absolutely nothing. Don't like Baker's position? Write him a letter. Send him an email. Call his campaign. Or do what I did: speak to him in person.
Click to expand...

I have written his campaign.
I gently reminded them that 300 thousand votes in this state is not a block one should be overlooking in a tight race.
No reply.
Wrote to him early on asking him if he would support the constitutional rights on voters in this state.
No reply.
My Grandfather had an expression I remember to this day. "Never reward stupidity, it only encourages it."

For those who think that Martha is the Anti Christ of gun rights (And she is.), consider this.
Why would Bloomburg EVER support someone other than the most rabid anti 2A candidate?
Bloomy didn't get to be a billionaire by falling into a pile of cash by accident.
The man expects a return on his investments.
So why would he pick Baker to support over Martha's proven track record of anti 2A?

Vote for Baker because ,well, it's not Martha.
Just don't be too shocked when he goes balls out after gun rights in a way that makes Martha look like an amature.


I’m thrilled to have the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg who’s one of the most significant gun control advocates in the United States," he continued.
 
While neither candidate is emphasizing 2A issues I am voting for Baker for the following reasons:

1. Baker put GOAL rated A+ pro-2A Karyn Polito on his ticket for Lt. Governor. During his campaign, Baker has emphasized Polito as his team partner and the importance of her positions and skills. Baker will be more receptive to GOAL and gun owners concerns and interests. Like Deval Patrick, Coakley never has and never will.

2. Coakley is worse than Baker. Baker supports current gun laws and Coakley wants more gun control. Baker is against illegal guns, Coakley is against legal guns. Aggressively anti-2A Martha Coakley, who already uses her Attorney general state office to enforce an arbitrary gun ban, has a record of more gun control for legal guns and gun owners.

While Baker has made a few statements supporting the AWB (which we already have in MA) and against "illegal" guns he hasn't made any statements or positions to support more gun control even though Bloomberg donated to his campaign. Bloomberg has made lots of mistakes in his attempts to influence politics and his support for Baker doesn't seem to primarily involve gun control.

"Bloomberg chose to endorse Baker, the former chief executive of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, because he admired his work in rescuing the insurer from bankruptcy and his earlier commitment to modernizing state government as a member of two Republican administrations."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...7uL/story.html

The Globe and other democrat media and politicians are supporting Baker for pretty much the same reasons. While no one is talking about it, I am sure Coakley has received much more money from anti-2A billionaires and supporters.

3. If Republicans Baker and Miller (Attorney General) get into office we have at least some chance of getting rid of the Attorney General's arbitrary gun ban. If Democrats Coakley and Healey win - no chance.

4. In order to send a message to the Democrat party that constantly infringing on our 2A civil rights is unacceptable and their candidates deserve to lose. Coakley is clearly a bigger threat to the RKBA than Baker.
 
Last edited:
cekim said:
Neutral? Vocally?

He is neither on guns. He is actively against our civil rights and not afraid to share...

and worrying about Coakly or Baker right now is pointless - we've already lost this election cycle as we will have one of two anti-civil rights losers in office no matter what. So, consider that if you tolerate anti-civil rights losers soaking up your vote for fear of an even bigger 'nozzle, then you will get anti-civil rights losers as options for future representation.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
Click to expand...

Um, what is "accordingly" when you have an anti-gun, attorney general twit (replace the "i" with an "a" for a more appropriate title) opposed by a "Republican" who supports the AWB and is "thrilled' to have received the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg.

What the hell is voting "accordingly" in this hellhole?
 
If you guys think that anyone is going to come out swinging against the gun grabbers when they know M. Crackly has been one of the worst as AG you are wrong. Even if they are passive about the subject because this ain't TN or TX. We are a hotbed of liberals and progressives that want nothing more than to beat you over the head with bend over laws that abuse your rights. If I only have two votes to count, you can bet your sweet bippy for myself anyway, I am going to do as much damage to that scum sucking reject Crackly as I can and send her packing.

Crackly is dumber than a box of rocks and even the demorats would have preferred another candidate but at least I think based on what I have seen Baker has a head and some level of leadership ability that have been sorely lacking in DEVIL and MARTHA CRACKLY.
 
GlockJock said:
Um, what is "accordingly" when you have an anti-gun, attorney general twit (replace the "i" with an "a" for a more appropriate title) opposed by a "Republican" who supports the AWB and is "thrilled' to have received the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg.

What the hell is voting "accordingly" in this hellhole?
Click to expand...
Step 1, tell the other wing of the Democrat party known as Republican that you will not tolerate people hostile to your rights simply to get the right letter in front of their name.

Vote accordingly is thinking longer term and changing things prior to the primaries, but part of that is signaling to the party that they can't win by lying to you.
 
GlockJock said:
Um, what is "accordingly" when you have an anti-gun, attorney general twit (replace the "i" with an "a" for a more appropriate title) opposed by a "Republican" who supports the AWB and is "thrilled' to have received the endorsement of Michael Bloomberg.

What the hell is voting "accordingly" in this hellhole?
Click to expand...

Instead of telling you that you cannot have a bayonet mount, flash hider, and pre-ban anything like CA or NY and CT it may be time to consider those as the alternatives you are looking at. I would much rather battle a person like Baker on the issues than a complete moron like Coakley!
 
The Baker campaign called me several times, including his campaign manager calling me to volunteer, I told them that Baker willingly took the anti-2A position, either based on his core belief or a calculated decision that such a position will gain him more vote overall, then I was simply happy to oblige his wish.

Which one is worse? An enemy or a traitor?

Republicans are 50% of the problem.
 

Similar threads

Anti-2A Men Have Smaller Dicks
2
Replies
45
Views
892
PappyM3
PappyM3
NEW 2A group comes out SWINGING
Replies
0
Views
294
Gidge
Gidge
Demented Biden Threatens Gun Owners at Anti-2A Event: ‘They Need F-16s to Take on Government’ - Same Day Hunter Biden Convicted - Proves Need for AR's
Replies
27
Views
885
StevieP
StevieP
Need a lawyer for a will... would prefer a gun guy/2a friendly...
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
Mark from MA
M
Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
slap shot
slap shot
Back
Top Bottom