Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
jasons said:
Skip ahead to 10:10
Click to expand...

What I found most troubling about those boobs was that they spoke as if they wrote the law paragraph by paragraph. Even referring to their unanimous votes on each of the 47 or whatever it was clauses and if it was unanimous then they left it out.

So, they published a pile of crap a month ago that did not resemble this bill, but it seems they gave DeLeo another document in secret?

Or have they spent the last month writing this after the the steaming pile they dropped a month ago hit the desk to much lack of fanfare for its amateurish blather?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cekim said:
What I found most troubling about those boobs was that they spoke as if they wrote the law paragraph by paragraph. Even referring to their unanimous votes on each of the 47 or whatever it was clauses and if it was unanimous then they left it out.

So, they published a pile of crap a month ago that did not resemble this bill, but it seems they gave DeLeo another document in secret?

Or have they spent the last month writing this after the the steaming pile they dropped a month ago hit the desk to much lack of fanfare for its amateurish blather?
Click to expand...

This video is great!
 
Horrible said:
Yup. Called Mike Moore's office and the same result.
Click to expand...

I spoke with Moore's office, and he said 8 million people are calling. He also stated Mike was in voting against it at the moment. When I said there are a lot of angry people, and the next step is pitchforks, torches, tar, and feathers, he said he appreciated the call thanks just the same.

Chang-Diaz' office said they "appreciate the call" and it was "almost entirely in opposition".

James Welch's office had the voicemail box full.
 
cekim said:
What I found most troubling about those boobs was that they spoke as if they wrote the law paragraph by paragraph. Even referring to their unanimous votes on each of the 47 or whatever it was clauses and if it was unanimous then they left it out.

So, they published a pile of crap a month ago that did not resemble this bill, but it seems they gave DeLeo another document in secret?

Or have they spent the last month writing this after the the steaming pile they dropped a month ago hit the desk to much lack of fanfare for its amateurish blather?
Click to expand...


For them it had about as much importance as a middle school group project book report had for most of us. It was just another line on their CV.
 
Last edited:
cekim said:
What I found most troubling about those boobs was that they spoke as if they wrote the law paragraph by paragraph. Even referring to their unanimous votes on each of the 47 or whatever it was clauses and if it was unanimous then they left it out.

So, they published a pile of crap a month ago that did not resemble this bill, but it seems they gave DeLeo another document in secret?

Or have they spent the last month writing this after the the steaming pile they dropped a month ago hit the desk to much lack of fanfare for its amateurish blather?
Click to expand...
Indeed. The correct answer from the "One to two year" question should have been "We don't know, we didn't recommend that."
 
Coyote33 said:
I spoke with Moore's office, and he said 8 million people are calling. He also stated Mike was in voting against it at the moment. When I said there are a lot of angry people, and the next step is pitchforks, torches, tar, and feathers, he said he appreciated the call thanks just the same.

Chang-Diaz' office said they "appreciate the call" and it was "almost entirely in opposition".

James Welch's office had the voicemail box full.
Click to expand...

If I am reading your comment correctly, you're saying Chang-Diaz is against this bill? I would be absolutely shocked if she was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Garden12 said:
If I am reading your comment correctly, you're saying Chang-Diaz is against this bill? I would be absolutely shocked if she was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

no he's saying that Chang-Diaz's aid said almost all calls have been against it. But that doesn't matter, Chang-Diaz is one of the most rabid antis out there and doesn't give a sh&t.
 
sevenMMmag said:
no he's saying that Chang-Diaz's aid said almost all calls have been against it. But that doesn't matter, Chang-Diaz is one of the most rabid antis out there and doesn't give a sh&t.
Click to expand...

I had a feeling that's what he meant, I just wanted to double check. Trust me I know how much a jerk she is. She must file an anti gun bill every session.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chang-Diaz represents a district that must collectivize responsibility for crime, because if they don't, the mirror is a tough thing to look into. She'll vote yes.
 
Garden12 said:
If I am reading your comment correctly, you're saying Chang-Diaz is against this bill? I would be absolutely shocked if she was.
Click to expand...

I think you're reading way too much into it. I'm sure that people calling her (and everyone else on the committee) are almost entirely in opposition, but very few if any of those people are her constituents.
 
This is Chang-Diaz at the mic at the State House on the day of the hearing (from her twitter). That should confirm where she stands on 4121.





BpN1YwTCAAEUPRW.jpg:large
 
She would vote to put a giant red line through the second amendment if she could


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ProGun said:
This is Chang-Diaz at the mic at the State House on the day of the hearing (from her twitter). That should confirm where she stands on 4121.
Click to expand...
She won't tell us how many people she owns, but she speaks as if it is a lot... Always going on about "my people" this and "my people? that. Here I thought New England was all progressive and anti-slavery?
 
Email from NRA today confirms online vote..
Massachusetts: Act NOW as Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security Tries to Sneak Vote on Egregious Anti-Gun Bill Tomorrow

Your NRA has just learned that the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will be conducting an electronic poll vote that will be concluded at noon tomorrow on whether to vote House Bill 4121 out of committee with favorable report.

HB 4121 was introduced less than two weeks ago by House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop), and it seems that the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security is attempting to quietly jam this legislation through the process without adequate time and opportunity for public comment.

It is CRITICAL that you contact members of the committee IMMEDIATELY and urge them to oppose this dangerous affront to your Second Amendment rights.

To reach members of this committee in the House, call 617-722-2230.

To reach members of this committee in the Senate, call 617-722-1222.

This onerous “gun control” bill would give police chiefs discretion in licensing owners for shotguns and rifles, ban the private sale of firearms without a licensed gun dealer and require gun owners to provide a list of all firearms they currently own to the state with each renewal of their license, among many other things. Additionally, it would grant authority to the state Attorney General to remove certain firearms from the approved “firearms roster.”

As anyone who has gone through the process to legally obtain a firearm in Massachusetts knows, there is no dearth of existing state laws that regulate the sale, purchase and transfer of firearms. Legislators on Beacon Hill should be repealing gun control laws, NOT enacting more to further restrict your Second Amendment rights.

These requirements are only a few of the many onerous and deeply flawed provisions that penalize responsible gun owners and sportsmen in Massachusetts and could turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. Unfortunately, it seems as though the misguided Massachusetts Legislature won’t stop until they have completely obliterated your rights. As we’ve seen in other states, such as New York, these controversial registration schemes begin the slide down a slippery slope toward eventual confiscation. Historical evidence clearly proves that gun registration enables gun confiscation, and criminals never register their firearms.

Using the above switchboard numbers and the below telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, it is vital that you e-mail and leave voicemails for members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security IMMEDIATELY, urging them to vote “ought not to pass” tomorrow.

Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Senator James Timilty, Senate Chairman (D-Walpole)
617 722-1222
[email protected]

Senator Michael Moore, Senate Vice Chairman (D-Millbury)
617-722-1485
[email protected]

Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Boston)
617-722-1673
[email protected]

Senator Richard Ross (R-Wrentham)
617-722-1555
[email protected]

Senator James Welch (D-West Springfield)
617-722-1660
[email protected]

Representative Harold Naughton, House Chairman (D-Clinton)
617-722-2230
[email protected]

Representative Michael Brady, House Vice Chairman (D-Brockton)
617-722-2230
[email protected]

Representative Sean Curran (D-Springfield)
617-722-2263
[email protected]

Representative Linda Campbell (D-Methuen)
617-722-2305
[email protected]

Representative James Dwyer (D-Woburn)
617-722-2220
[email protected]

Representative Alan Silvia (D-Fall River)
617-722-2060
[email protected]

Representative David Vieira (R-East Falmouth)
617-722-2230
[email protected]

Representative Cleon Turner (D-Dennis)
617-722-2090
[email protected]

Representative Brian Ashe (D-Longmeadow)
617-722-2090
[email protected]

Representative Brian Mannal (D-Barnstable)
617-722-2582
[email protected]

Representative Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick)
617-722-2810
[email protected]

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
cekim said:
Nothing about that commission ads up. They are putting on a brave face, but its been shenanigans from day one.
Click to expand...

I wrote about why this appears to be the case to us earlier today, but my post was silently deleted. I assume whoever deleted that post didn't agree with my assessment, or thought that allowing the comment to stand would somehow injure the attempt to rally NES to call and fax people en masse.

I found it kind of offensive. Hey, it's their sandbox but at least a note to the author about why a post is being deleted might be nice. I suppose I should be thrilled I didn't get an infraction for posting my assessment of the legislative process and our part in it.

I didn't even cuss. ;-)
 
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
122
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
368
deerdad
deerdad
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
215
MAGA99
MAGA99
CT: Armed Patrol wants New Haven residents to take safety into their own hands despite opposition
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Zappa
Zappa
Gang-related music videos driving gun violence in DC: report
Replies
4
Views
242
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom