Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
DeLeo didn't read the report as the Bill has been written for months (maybe over a year). No I will not sign an affidavit - the same deal as CT just given to you when renewing instead of an effective date; No, I will not sign.
 
I read GOAL's response and it's good, but......

Stop calling gun ownership a "civil right". It's not a civil right. It's an inherent right. A civil right is just another way of saying the government gives it's subjects permission to do something. Anything less than calling it an inherent right is watering-down the arguement.
 
The5thDentist said:
I read GOAL's response and it's good, but......

Stop calling gun ownership a "civil right". It's not a civil right. It's an inherent right. A civil right is just another way of saying the government gives it's subjects permission to do something. Anything less than calling it an inherent right is watering-down the arguement.
Click to expand...

You need to look up the definition of "civil rights". The term is interchangeable with "natural rights". From the aspect of selling the whole thing in this state, "civil rights" probably works better.

The Civil Rights movement was essentially about blacks being treated equally under the law. It's hard to argue blacks don't have a natural right to be treated that way.
 
PaulD said:
You need to look up the definition of "civil rights". The term is interchangeable with "natural rights". From the aspect of selling the whole thing in this state, "civil rights" probably works better.

The Civil Rights movement was essentially about blacks being treated equally under the law. It's hard to argue blacks don't have a natural right to be treated that way.
Click to expand...
This. Civil Rights = Human Rights = Natural Rights

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+rights
 
PaulD said:
Hmm. Maybe GOAL ought use "human right" occasionally. That might get the attention of a typical MA lib.
Click to expand...

problem is no MA lib thinks anything to do with owning a gun is a natural, human, civil or any other kind of right
 
mattyw said:
problem is no MA lib thinks anything to do with owning a gun is a natural, human, civil or any other kind of right
Click to expand...

Probably so, but there are still a bunch of people in the middle, or just too busy to have thought about it that could still be converted. Look at the increase in LTC numbers over the last couple of years (up 1/3 by some counts). The whole thing is a bell curve with us on one side of the x axis, the gun grabbing, liberal douchbags on the other end and a bunch of disinterested, too busy drones in the middle.

The5thDentist said:
Point taken, but that's the impression the term "civil rights" creates. Natural right or human right would convey a far stronger message than civil right.
Click to expand...

That all depends on who you're trying to reach. It would probably require a survey to figure out which term resonates with the most people and which gets them thinking. Personally, I think they're all interchangeable but I also recognize that few people will understand the concept of "natural right". If they did, they'd understand the reason for the Bill of Rights and we wouldn't be in this current cf. The other two terms are more current, for better or worse. Essentially, it's marketing and yes, it matters.
 
Paul, calling it marketing is perfect.

Out of curiosity I spent a little time looking at the word civil itself, and my original point is not without merit. I agree that the term "civil rights" is used and has an accepted meaning that equates it to natural rights or inherent rights, but when you dig into the meaning of the word "civil", it clearly has to do with being part of a state entity.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civil

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil

It's interesting for sure. Anyway, blame the guy that first came up with the term. [smile]

I guess ultimately which term is used only depends on what will resonate with the audience. But I still think the term "civil rights" has been so overused it doesn't really carry any weight of meaning.

/threadjack
 
Control language, control message, control thought.

The anti-freedom crowd has been playing that game for a long, long time and they're very, very good at it.
 
According to GOAL's rebuttal gun ownership/permits has fallen 80% since 1998. This is part of the anti's plan. These people don't give a shit about our rights, they think they're above the law. The believe the 2nd amendment was written by a bunch of racist white guys and it's irrelevant now. The State courts are filled w/liberal anti-gun judges who won't rule against a COP or the legislature. Martha won't even answer GOAL's letters or address the renewal debacle. Why? Because she doesn't have to. She's daring us to take her to court because she knows we will spend bucu bucks and will lose in court. Even if we won she would ignore the decision because she can. Obummer is a perfect example of the progressive mindset. He uses executive orders to circumvent Congress because he believes he has a mandate to change the country.
 
The5thDentist said:
Paul, calling it marketing is perfect.

Out of curiosity I spent a little time looking at the word civil itself, and my original point is not without merit. I agree that the term "civil rights" is used and has an accepted meaning that equates it to natural rights or inherent rights, but when you dig into the meaning of the word "civil", it clearly has to do with being part of a state entity.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civil

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil

It's interesting for sure. Anyway, blame the guy that first came up with the term. [smile]

I guess ultimately which term is used only depends on what will resonate with the audience. But I still think the term "civil rights" has been so overused it doesn't really carry any weight of meaning.

/threadjack
Click to expand...

So Mike S, since you're reading, how about "human right"? I do admit that I like the ring of that a bit better.

Exodious, you are correct. This is essentially thought control and our side needs to be better at it. The reason our side is not is, probably, because most people on our side are too busy with real jobs, building things, etc. to have to worry about subtleties that the cretins on the other side enjoys exploiting.
 
rwl1955 said:
According to GOAL's rebuttal gun ownership/permits has fallen 80% since 1998. This is part of the anti's plan. These people don't give a shit about our rights, they think they're above the law. The believe the 2nd amendment was written by a bunch of racist white guys and it's irrelevant now. The State courts are filled w/liberal anti-gun judges who won't rule against a COP or the legislature. Martha won't even answer GOAL's letters or address the renewal debacle. Why? Because she doesn't have to. She's daring us to take her to court because she knows we will spend bucu bucks and will lose in court. Even if we won she would ignore the decision because she can. Obummer is a perfect example of the progressive mindset. He uses executive orders to circumvent Congress because he believes he has a mandate to change the country.
Click to expand...
The 80% bit ought to give us pause. It really confirms the other side is winning in MA.

My understanding is the shall-issue FID was the basis for the state being able to claim they did not infringe. If long gun licensing becomes may-issue, would that not pretty much automatically trigger a lawsuit?
 
I'd like to do something unusual...commend my state Senator.
Before I could even finish writing letters to my state reps regarding the report, Senator Bruce Tarr's office contacted ME to make me aware of the report with a link. I replied with the link to GOAL's response, which they thanked me for.
Kudos to Mr. Tarr.
 
I'm absolutely shocked that this wasn't a total railroading job on us but then again they got that in 1998 and everything else is icing on the cake for them.

What effect does this report have on Linsky and Patrick's bills? Will they be ignored now if he went by this? I know it doesn't dismiss them but I'm hoping that they weren't included because they were dumb, not because they're already out there so why bother including them again, you know?
 
How was this committee picked? How come the farthest west any member on there goes is Natick? They can make recommendations, but nobody says those recommendations need to be followed.

How do this committee's findings reconcile with the findings of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee?

Can we put together our own committee, and hold our own meetings, and come up with recommendations for them?

How come GOAL, NRA, NSSF, GOA, and other organizations are not given a voice on these committees? Doesn't sound very "diverse" to me.

Can we argue that we will take one of their suggestions, if they end the magazine capacity limits. For now on, any "give" we give them, needs to have a corresponding "take" we get back from them, PERIOD.

I will now point you to FSTC's candidate thread.
 
KiloVictorTango said:
Yeah: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.co...383/rep-naughton-bowing-out-ag-race-will-seek

Maybe the Dems got afraid of Brad Wyatt
Click to expand...

Now it is time for gun owners to go to bat for Brad Wyatt, BIG TIME! We need to put up signs, hold up signs, go to the rallies, write letters, and SHOW UP FOR HIM. We need to rally GOAL to put the word out. We need to welcome him into our clubs and organizations, and help him move his campaign forward. There are others out there as well. This needs to be a great, coordinated effort. The NRA and GOA should be helping out here as well.

Go team!
 
He should have been a better friend to us.

All he needed to do was make some pro-gun/pro-liberty comments in committee hearings, perhaps a public slapdown of Linsky's ridiculous confiscatory proposals and a promise to end the AG prohibited gun list...I'm sure those on this forum would have donated more to his campaign than the lousy three grand he ended up with.
 
sieveboy said:
really!

I always seem to get my news here.

Don't know if this is good or bad for us.
Click to expand...

If this means we'll get one of the remaining D candidates, it's bad. Tolman is a full on hoplophobe who to use the AG regs to push for fingerprint recognition on guns. Healey worked for Coakley. Enough said there.

Naughton was definitely preferable to these two.
 
PaulD said:
If this means we'll get one of the remaining D candidates, it's bad. Tolman is a full on hoplophobe who to use the AG regs to push for fingerprint recognition on guns. Healey worked for Coakley. Enough said there.

Naughton was definitely preferable to these two.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that the remaining AG choices are bad, but with Naughton the likely author of the "comprehensive" gun bill, and with the House and Senate surely to rubber stamp it, will his freedom from having to face state-wide election free him from having to answer to the whining group of mayors/governor/limp-wristed pastors, and other moonbats like those who testified in Boston, and maybe draft something less draconian?

Wishful thinking?
 
PaulD said:
If this means we'll get one of the remaining D candidates, it's bad. ... Naughton was definitely preferable to these two.
Click to expand...

sieveboy said:
Yes, I understand that the remaining AG choices are bad, but with Naughton the likely author of the "comprehensive" gun bill, and with the House and Senate surely to rubber stamp it, will his freedom from having to face state-wide election free him from having to answer to the whining group of mayors/governor/limp-wristed pastors, and other moonbats like those who testified in Boston, and maybe draft something less draconian?

Wishful thinking?
Click to expand...

The R's haven't put together a solid candidate yet? And they wonder why they are having trouble in this state?


crazymjb said:
I really don't think he has any interest in proposing a draconian bill... time shall tell. ...
Click to expand...

Have you asked him yet? If so, what was his answer? If he's so willing to help or at least not hurt us, you'd think it would be known by now.
 
Coyote33 said:
Have you asked him yet? If so, what was his answer? If he's so willing to help or at least not hurt us, you'd think it would be known by now.
Click to expand...

I asked him. He stated that he expected the bill coming out of his committee to focus oh the mental health issue and licensing, and would do away with pepper spray licensing. He later was in the press alluding to requiring all sales to go through FFLs.

On one hand, that's not as "draconian" as what we saw from DeLeo's committee or Deval Linsky's effluence. On the other hand, if he means to force all lawful sales through FFLs without eliminating the AG/EOPS lists, and if he means to make all licenses "may issue", those are, IMHO, the two most oppressive proposals of the DeLeo committee!

That said, he seemed a decent guy, who is still a politician whose constituents likely would like to see all civilians disarmed.
 
Last edited:
This whole thing keeps making me nervous, I want it over with (for now) so I don't have to worry about dumb new laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Number of new gun owners since 2020 election surged to equal population of Florida: report
Replies
4
Views
133
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
380
deerdad
deerdad
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
244
MAGA99
MAGA99
The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
4K
sbhaven
S
CT: Armed Patrol wants New Haven residents to take safety into their own hands despite opposition
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Zappa
Zappa
Back
Top Bottom