Deval Patrick's Plans

Miserable son of a bitch isn't in office yet and he's ALREADY living up to his nickname: Spend-It-All-Deval!

It's gonna be a looong four years. [crying]
 
mAss Backwards said:
Consider the creation of additional gun courts.
Click to expand...

That particular point really burns my ass!

The one suggestion that address' criminal misuse and has no direct impact on law abiding gun owners and they'll consider it... not actually implement it, not make it a priority... no... they'll think about it ("they can be rehabilitated").

Then again... knowing the way this state operates the "gun courts" will focus primarily on the unfortunate soul who gets nabbed with a questionable hi-cap mag or forgets to put a trigger lock on his skeet gun. [thinking]
 
it's freaking insane...

as has been pointed a number of times already but, why not just enforce the laws they have and add stiffer penalties to them?

Oh wait, I forgot, our judges don't actually like to punish the criminals.
 
LoginName said:
That particular point really burns my ass!

The one suggestion that address' criminal misuse and has no direct impact on law abiding gun owners and they'll consider it... not actually implement it, not make it a priority... no... they'll think about it ("they can be rehabilitated").

Then again... knowing the way this state operates the "gun courts" will focus primarily on the unfortunate soul who gets nabbed with a questionable hi-cap mag or forgets to put a trigger lock on his skeet gun. [thinking]
Click to expand...

Yeah those "gun courts" will be for us... And they'll appoint judges who know nothing about guns other than the Brady Camp propoganda...
 
LoginName said:
That particular point really burns my ass!

The one suggestion that address' criminal misuse and has no direct impact on law abiding gun owners and they'll consider it... not actually implement it, not make it a priority... no... they'll think about it ("they can be rehabilitated").
Click to expand...

IMO, gun courts are bad, period. Their whole existence is as a
propaganda tool for antis. EG, the message is "guns are
bad... they're so bad that we need a special court to convict people
of so called "gun crimes". All these courts do is contribute to the
demonization of firearms. (It doesn't matter that the vast majority of
those convicted are scumbags, the fact of the matter is that guns are
getting "singled out" as being "worse") Ostensibly, one would think
that the goal of the court is only to punish criminals and give them longer
sentences, etc, etc... but guess who else ends up in that court? Otherwise
law abiding people might end up there that were defending themselves. (or
as you mention, for a safe storage violation, or some other non-violent
gun based offense.) This creates an extra hostile environment for the
person in that position, given that in such a court 95 out of 100 people going
through it are bad and getting sent to jail. So now we're "special" because
we chose to defend ourselves with a firearm instead of a knife or a baseball
bat. [rolleyes]

Now, if they were saying "change sentencing guidelines for certain violent
crimes, I'd be more in agreement with that, as opposed to a gun
court. That will never happen, because they want the thugs to know
that it's okay to be violent, as long as it doesn't involve a gun. [rolleyes]


-Mike
 
reinbeau said:
Oh? What's involved? I'm looking for opportunities....
Click to expand...

05137kp.jpg
 
well.... I did request something along the lines of a guard tower and shotguns at my last job... they failed to see the humor in my comment. [hmmm]
 
I think the gun courts are a joke. If they were serious about getting the PEOPLE carrying guns illegally off the street, they'd refer these cases to the BATFE. The feds take felons with guns pretty seriously and can put them away for much longer stretches of time. However, the local pols can't make any points with that.

Gary
 
The gun courts will go after drug-dealing gangbangers with illegal FA's just as much as they will go after people who have a post ban magazine or an AR 15 barrel that is 3/8 of an inch too short.

This is not about crime as much as it is about guns.
 
ICZEOZN said:
The gun courts will go after drug-dealing gangbangers with illegal FA's just as much as they will go after people who have a post ban magazine or an AR 15 barrel that is 3/8 of an inch too short.
Click to expand...

I rather doubt it, since that's not what they do now. The problem is that we really don't know who goes away for how long. The gun courts will be restricted to urban areas and target "youts" that carry guns.

Gary
 
Regarding this "gun court" proposal...

It's not a matter if it's a good or bad thing, or if it can be used against the average law abiding gun owner whom happens to make a mistake, or if it's intention is to target the gang-bangers and car trunk dealers.

The point is that is that when it comes down to putting those away that are the most responsible for firearms related violence in this state, it's something that that will be "considered" as opposed to unquestionably legislating whatever firearms we can own and under what circumstances.

It's easier, less expensive and more politically correct ("it's racist", "we have more people in prison in this country than Russia or China", etc), to treat the symptom rather than the disease and we have to pay for it.

They'd much rather put the screws to you and I than actually put the shit heads responsible behind bars, but they'll never do that. [angry]
 
I have a great idea... instead of a gun court we should just create a crime court. When you commit a crime with or without a gun you would be brought here and put before a judge and a jury. If found guilty you would get a new (to you) small 1 room apartment courtisy of the Commonwealth complete with a door that locks from the outside. We could build these apt buildings around the state and suround them with tall walls and fences. Once these criminals are living in these (we'll call them prisons) we can control what they do and keep them from hurting innocent people.... I think we've tried this but somewhere we went wrong... the solution continues...

Instead of Time off for good behavior and parole after x years, your sentance should be the minimum time served. If your not good add more time. Attach a vocational school to the side of every prison. Instead of a 3 - 5 years and out in 18 months you should get 5 years or until you can become a productive member of society...whichever comes later. If you are capable of being a productive member of society before your time is up, we'll move you to a "nicer" facility (not released on parole) where you will work for the state to repay some of the cost of you incarseration, and build a small stipen to get your life started upon release, at which time your parole/probation begins. You now get to live in gvmt. housing and pay close to fair market rent (to pay back more of your incaseration/education). You'd be free to come and go but you'll have a curfew. Now you get to be a productive member of society under the watchful eye of the state. This would go on for no less than 25% of your time served in prison. After that and for the rest of you life (for "violent crimes") you will meet once a month with your parole officer.

If you return to your life of crime you will then be determined to be unreabilitatable. At which time you will be strongly encouraged to move to a state with the death penalty or spend the remainder of your life in prison.
 
Whatever became of Bostons "Operation Ceasefire" program?

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile21.html

If it was as successful as claimed, shouldn't Mumbles and Patrick be taking that sort of approach instead? Or... are they fearful that too many inner-city "youts"
will be incarcerated and pick-up even more bad habits?

Allegedly, part of the reason there's been an increase in firearms related crime in Boston is that many of the gang-bangers that were sentenced under Operation Ceasefire (and similar programs), have served their time and are now returning
to reclaim their turf.
 
EddieCoyle said:
It's a straw man. There's no such thing as a "private dealer" There are dealers, and there are private transactions (a.k.a. FTF). Their use of the term "private dealer" is a euphemism for "private transaction". Since we are already prohibited by law to privately sell/trade more than 4 guns per year, there are no legal private dealers. The only way that they can make private dealers "more illegal" is to ban all private transactions.
Click to expand...

This makes sense and sounds pretty clear. You should write that up as a letter to the editor of the Globe, Herald, and T&G.
 

Similar threads

Long Island Politician Plans to Deputize Armed Civilians
Replies
6
Views
228
hunt4riches
H
One person dead and two injured after gunman opens fire during St Patrick's Day celebrations outside bars
Replies
6
Views
377
LTCRN
LTCRN
Exclusive: Gov. Brian Kemp’s Plans to Keep Georgia Second-Amendment Strong
Replies
0
Views
290
Reptile
Reptile
Ali Osman: Family of Arizona man killed by police after he threw rocks at their patrol cars plans to sue for $85 million
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Deputies arrest man who reportedly had plans to shoot up Washington music festival
Replies
9
Views
678
Fixxah
Fixxah
Back
Top Bottom