Charlie Baker on 2A

Acujeff said:
Maura Healey, the Democratic candidate for Massachusetts attorney general, said she believes the Supreme Court went too far in establishing an individual right to bear arms. "I think the Supreme Court went too far. I don't think that was original intent of the Second Amendment," Healey said.

Healey made her comments on gun rights during a televised debate with her Republican opponent John Miller moderated by NECN's Jim Braude.

Braude followed up, "That there's not an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment?"
"That's what I'm saying," Healey said.

Miller disagreed, saying, "There is a right to bear arms. It's in our Constitution, the Massachusetts Constitution as well."

Healey, throughout her campaign, has been a proponent of stronger gun laws. She would consider requiring "microstamping" of firearms, in which a mark is made on a gun's firing pin allowing the police to trace the source of a bullet. She wants to require live firing exercises for anyone applying for a gun license. She would also support legislation to require smart gun technology, like fingerprint trigger locks.

Miller has said he would enforce existing gun laws but would not advocate for new ones.

article at:
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/maura_healey_says_supreme_cour.html
Click to expand...

The cognitive dissonance, from a lawyer no less, is astounding (but not really surprising in this case).

It's like a mechanical engineer who doesn't understand the basic equation for work, or a software developer who doesn't understand binary math.

Ugh.
 
Baker is slightly ahead but it's still pretty close according to polls. Baker's 46-43 percent lead is well within the poll's margin of error but the GOP nominee holds several key advantages over his Democratic opponent heading into the campaign's final few days, according to the Suffolk-Herald poll. Just 6 percent of voters say they are undecided.

The Republican holds a 20-point lead over Coakley among independent voters, while getting nearly a quarter of Democratic voters, the poll shows. And Baker holds a big lead among voters paying close attention to the race.

In the other statewide races, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey holds a 15-point lead over GOP challenger while other Democrats also are leading in the races for Treasurer, Auditor and Attorney General.

article at:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...oints_over_coakley_in_new_suffolk_herald_poll
 
Don't count on that - if you don't vote and Martha wins, it's going to be more attacking uphill.

Already sent in my absentee ballot, have to say they were fast. Mailed the request the 28th, received the 29th, mailed to me the same day and I got it the 30th.
 
During her tenure as A.G. Martha Coakley always looked the other way when licensed gun owners were enduring abuse of their rights at the hands of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and has never offered any relief from the Attorney General's backdoor ban on common use handguns.

To make matters worse, she also prosecuted legal gun owners for things like storage violations, ensuring that they lost their Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts because they didn’t lock up a firearm correctly.

The case known as Commonwealth v. Runyan in 2010 involved a questionably legal search of a gun owners home in which police found firearms not locked up to the states standard of the law.

The case had been dismissed in lower court on the grounds of the Heller decision giving the homeowner the right to have a firearm in the home. Of course, A. G. Coakley appealed and the case moved onto State Supreme Court.

On numerous occasions she cited as the states defense the Supreme Court’s Cruikshank Decision of 1875. Cruikshank is a case renowned as one of the most racist, anti-civil rights cases ever handed. For those unfamiliar with Cruikshank, it regards a massacre at the Colfax Court House where approximately one hundred fifty people guarding the premises, mostly freed black men, were disarmed and murdered by a white mob comprised of members of the KKK and other white supremacy groups of the time. The decision absolved the murderers of guilt.

Coakley seized upon this horrid decision to argue her side before the State Supreme court and cited it to convince the court to disregard Heller.

She won and Runyan was sentenced. A good man was now a criminal because he didn’t lock up his guns according to the laws of Massachusetts.

Article by Mike Sweeney of GOAL:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/27/m...idate-used-pro-kkk-case-to-convict-gun-owner/
 
I was in a shop today and heard that Baker stated at a GOAL event that the AG's nonsense will go away if he's elected. Now, that may be rumor or completely false, especially since he advertises that he loves the AWB. But you never know.

Oh, and I tried to go and vote today and STINKING Methuen City Hall closes at NOON on Fridays. WTF? SEIU can KMA.
 
The5thDentist said:
I was in a shop today and heard that Baker stated at a GOAL event that the AG's nonsense will go away if he's elected. Now, that may be rumor or completely false, especially since he advertises that he loves the AWB. But you never know.

Oh, and I tried to go and vote today and STINKING Methuen City Hall closes at NOON on Fridays. WTF? SEIU can KMA.
Click to expand...

False.
 
garandman said:
Don't count on that - if you don't vote and Martha wins, it's going to be more attacking uphill.
Click to expand...
Ok,
Baker has a good chance of winning.

How do we prove the "Gun Vote" should be courted?

There are quite a few Pro 2A reps out there, they will win.

When Bakers team looks at the numbers from the election and see Pro 2a victories, let them see the blanks for governor.

That is the message.

That will show Pro gun unity.

I met with Charlie personally, I invited him to the range. He turned me down, he lost my vote.


For Governor Blank the ballot.

And now for a little backstory, I have been working for a pro gun candidate for the better part of 2 years. Charlie has invested over a million on his Data.
Everything is modeled, including which voters to ignore and which to court. The data targets some people who haven't voted since 2008 in some cases.
The "sheep" vote is guaranteed and thus, not courted. The "gun" vote is also not to be courted. His campaign schedule is based on the data gathered after the primary. Pro gun districts received very little 'love' i.e. appearances. Why? because most of the 'gun' vote will vote 'R' regardless.
Baker (if he wins, and I think he will) will be looking at mid-terms, and of course a 2nd term. So with a Baker victory comes a sit down with non supporters (the blank votes, the split tickets etc.)
And guess what? barring another Sandy Hook or a significant blank vote to Republican vote disparity, we will be ignored, again. If you want the gun vote to matter, you have to stand up and make them notice you.

This isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass, Baker has pissed off a lot of political analysts/consultants who feel he has gone too far, these observations of mine are from sitting in the back of the room whilst people who get boners off this kind of stuff talk.

Disagree if you want, neg rep if you must. It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
FSTC said:
Ok,
Baker has a good chance of winning.

How do we prove the "Gun Vote" should be courted?

There are quite a few Pro 2A reps out there, they will win.

When Bakers team looks at the numbers from the election and see Pro 2a victories, let them see the blanks for governor.

That is the message.

That will show Pro gun unity.

I met with Charlie personally, I invited him to the range. He turned me down, he lost my vote.


For Governor Blank the ballot.

And now for a little backstory, I have been working for a pro gun candidate for the better part of 2 years. Charlie has invested over a million on his Data.
Everything is modeled, including which voters to ignore and which to court. The data targets some people who haven't voted since 2008 in some cases.
The "sheep" vote is guaranteed and thus, not courted. The "gun" vote is also not to be courted. His campaign schedule is based on the data gathered after the primary. Pro gun districts received very little 'love' i.e. appearances. Why? because most of the 'gun' vote will vote 'R' regardless.
Baker (if he wins, and I think he will) will be looking at mid-terms, and of course a 2nd term. So with a Baker victory comes a sit down with non supporters (the blank votes, the split tickets etc.)
And guess what? barring another Sandy Hook or a significant blank vote to Republican vote disparity, we will be ignored, again. If you want the gun vote to matter, you have to stand up and make them notice you.

This isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass, Baker has pissed off a lot of political analysts/consultants who feel he has gone too far, these observations of mine are from sitting in the back of the room whilst people who get boners off this kind of stuff talk.

Disagree if you want, neg rep if you must. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

I do not neg anyone but you also need to step back. A blank vote from anyone that is pro 2A is a vote for Martha. It is really that simple. She is anti 2A and Charlie aint much better but he is in fact better. Lesser of 2 evils and he will get my vote. Neg me if you wish but this extreme thought that any candidate is 100% pro 2A is fairly laughable in this state. Nobody who is like minded with gun owners and admits it will ever be elected. That is just a fact.
 
Last edited:
Boman said:
I do not neg anyone but you also need to step back. A blank vote from anyone that is pro 2A is a vote for Martha. It is really that simple. She is anti 2A and Charlie aint much better but he is in fact better. Lesser of 2 evils and he will get my vote. Neg me if you wish ... That is just a fact.
Click to expand...
haha, I wont neg someone over an opinion. Just understand this: Charlie Baker KNOWS there are 300k gun owners in this state. He KNOWS that the "hard core" "single issue" gun voter is around 1%, That is 3000 voters. He is OK with losing their vote.
This isn't about "100% 2A" this is about 3k voters who CAN take a stand, but won't unite.

Charlies' people have advised him that the gun vote won't make a difference in the election.
 
FSTC said:
haha, I wont neg someone over an opinion. Just understand this: Charlie Baker KNOWS there are 300k gun owners in this state. He KNOWS that the "hard core" "single issue" gun voter is around 1%, That is 3000 voters. He is OK with losing their vote.
This isn't about "100% 2A" this is about 3k voters who CAN take a stand, but won't unite.

Charlies' people have advised him that the gun vote won't make a difference in the election.
Click to expand...

Not to argue but the fact that you are for leaving it blank will somehow show a stance is just wrong. This is IMO about 2A and not allowing a person who is so anti 2A not be be voted in. Would I prefer that Baker is 100% all in on 2A well of course but in the end as previously stated the lesser of 2 evils rule applies.
 
To be 100% clear I would vote for anyone other than Martha. I am scared to death that she may somehow get in. A vote for Baker is better than a blank vote IMO.
 
FSTC spends a lot of effort trying to convince us Baker doesn't need our votes and is a bigger threat than Coakley to gun owners. Seems like every election we get some who advocate the same thing to "punish" the Republican who isn't conservative enough. That's how we wound up with Patrick, Obama and Warren. It seems to me we're only punishing ourselves and rewarding anti-2A Democrats,

Coakley is a bigger threat than Baker. I think we've been punished enough. I'd rather send a message to the Democrats that their candidates are worse and not acceptable. I'm voting for Baker as well as "R" for all the state offices, especially Attorney General.

If gun owners don't vote for our best interests, why should candidates, or a party, take us seriously?
 
Last edited:
I know that some of the AG's firearm regulations were begun by Coakley's predecessors. What policy changes did Coakley herself make?
 
LR2a said:
I know that some of the AG's firearm regulations were begun by Coakley's predecessors. What policy changes did Coakley herself make?
Click to expand...

During her tenure as A.G. Martha Coakley always looked the other way when licensed gun owners were enduring abuse of their rights at the hands of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. GOAL and Comm2A have documented and fought these problems for many years.

To make matters worse, she also prosecuted legal gun owners for things like storage violations, ensuring that they lost their Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts because they didn’t lock up a firearm correctly.

Article by Mike Sweeney of GOAL:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/27/m...idate-used-pro-kkk-case-to-convict-gun-owner/

As we are all aware she has been enthusiastic in banning guns that don't meet the Attorney General arbitrarily standards as well as banning legal mail order ammunition purchases.

It would be insane to think gun owners would get any better treatment from her as Governor or from Healey as Attorney General.
 
jaypap said:
Or you could vote for the one who can piss the furthest but you would still get Marsha.

Voting for Baker will send warning shots at the Democrats, doing nothing is still doing nothing.
Click to expand...

If Baker is going to win anyhow, a vote for Lively or a blank will send BOTH a warning shot.
 
LR2a said:
I know that some of the AG's firearm regulations were begun by Coakley's predecessors. What policy changes did Coakley herself make?
Click to expand...

The regs were enacted under Scotty Harshbarger. Martha refused to back off them and continued the policies he started as AG
 
mursenary4 said:
the lesser of two evils vote... how every politician has been elected ever
Click to expand...

That's because ALL politicians are inherently EVIL!!


Coyote33 said:
If Baker is going to win anyhow, a vote for Lively or a blank will send BOTH a warning shot.
Click to expand...

Says who?

Don't bet on any poll other than the results of the election itself.

The Dems will wake the dead to vote for their people. They will bus in illegals if needed and pay them to vote for their candidates.

Every vote counts here. Taking any other position is extremely dangerous . . . and as I stated earlier, Healey will be the next AG (I like Miller but nobody knows him) and a "tag team" of Healey and her old boss is a very, very deadly cocktail for gun owners in MA!!
 
IMHO the strongest vote against Coakly, unfortunately, is for Baker. There is not a single Dem who will get my vote and this is coming from one who has always voted anti-incumbent and for no particular party.
 

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
886
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