- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
Cross-X said:
[lol] [lol]
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Hank Phillipi Ryan to "investigate" MA CCW
- Thread starter Marcus in the Darkus
- Start date
[lol] [lol]
So what was the final word- did it air or not?
dwarven1 said:It's on at 11pm - not for another 2 hours.
Gotta stop putting resublimated thiotimiline in your nightcaps, SR.(And two points to whoever recognizes the reference.)
Ross
Gotta be a line from one of those god-awful fantasy fiction, bodice-ripper potboilers, ain't that right, Sir Ross?
dwarven1 said:
Fantasy fiction, sci-fi, whats the diff?
Certainly, sire, you are not claiming that sci-fi is true, are you?
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Cross-X said:
Nice guess... the story is "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimiline", by Isaac Asimov. He wrote it when he needed a break from writing his doctoral thesis - it's a spoof on a scientific paper.
Anyway, thiotimiline reacts with other chemicals BEFORE they actually touch each other, thus it's a crucial ingredient in building time machines... which is why I was kidding SR that she must have been drinking it, as she wanted to know about the "news" piece on gun owners two hours before it aired.
I seem to remember that she reads SF so I figured I tease her a little.
Ross
Just saw the first preview - the segment is coming up. The voice-over was the scary news story voice. Like "Is there a silent killer in your kids' medicine cabinet? Tune in tomorrow at ll:00 find out!"
I'mm taping it. The Ch. 7 site has a brief blurb up on it. Looks pretty lame.
I'mm taping it. The Ch. 7 site has a brief blurb up on it. Looks pretty lame.
Nice timing.
the story on before it is about a woman in Brookline who was accosted on the street by a naked man in a mask.
Use that as a reason to apply for a carry pemit, and the chief will tell you those things don't happen in his crime-free hamlet.
the story on before it is about a woman in Brookline who was accosted on the street by a naked man in a mask.
Use that as a reason to apply for a carry pemit, and the chief will tell you those things don't happen in his crime-free hamlet.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
Just watched it. NOT GOOD!!
Starts with the two perps with LTCs that went on the shooting sprees (Brockton and Lynn). Then scares listeners with 1 of 25 adults in MA has a LTC, 1 per T-bus, ad nauseum might be carrying a concealed weapon!
Pardon me while I go and barf!
Starts with the two perps with LTCs that went on the shooting sprees (Brockton and Lynn). Then scares listeners with 1 of 25 adults in MA has a LTC, 1 per T-bus, ad nauseum might be carrying a concealed weapon!
Pardon me while I go and barf!
I had my doubts when it started with the two licensed individuals who shot folks, however (I didn't catch his name) some LEO said those instances are very rare. He said that 99% of those licensed never commit a crime. (I would think it should be more than 99%) From the teasers I was getting ready to hemorage, however, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be Len. She did point out that PC's have discretionary licensing and Lynne Roberts was featured as someone who couldn't get an ALP LTC because the PC won't issue them. The other guy who was on was pretty good - they played him saying that he wanted to protect his wife and children. Hank said that there are 194,000 people in this state that have Class A's - which breaks down to 1 in 25 people. That means that in a full theater, 10 people could be carrying and you wouldn't know it. She also named certain towns and got numbers on the % of the pop that was issued licenses - I think it was Cambridge and Brookline that were the first two that she quoted as less than 1% of the inhabitants were licensed. Western MA towns had much higher numbers.
It could have been better, but it could have been a lot worse as well. The poison pen won't be making an appearance tonight. I couldn't get a tape to record it, and I couldn't take notes fast enough cuz I was trying to watch it too.
It could have been better, but it could have been a lot worse as well. The poison pen won't be making an appearance tonight. I couldn't get a tape to record it, and I couldn't take notes fast enough cuz I was trying to watch it too.
LenS said:
+1 what a joke. totally biased. how do you start a story with two incidents of shootings? I was shocked at how biased the story was. But then again I've only been in this communist state for 6 years.
I tell you what I bet Oakham has a low violent crime rate. But they didn't happen to mention that did they? I really hate the media. [evil]
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 99
- Likes
- 1
The link Marcus posted originally has been updated. Here's the link to the story: http://www1.whdh.com/features/articles/hank/BOS3748/
I missed the actual video, but the web report sounds very similar.
Considering the station and the market, the report is not totally biased (which is surprising), but it does seem that the recent road rage incidents involving licensed carriers were the impetus for the report. Despite some views from gunowners, the overall tone of the report comes across as anti-gun ownership, although not overt and blatant. The fact that the recent shootings were the reason this report came out when it did lends credence to the anti-gun stance of the report.
It's the little things:
Notice that Chief Frazier has to "defend" himself.
Oooooo...it's secretive and scary. I suppose if it were a matter of public record, we ought to make library lending habits and public school records public as well. Oh wait, that's an invasion of privacy...(exactly).
Note that there's no reference to the number of shootings that occur due to unlicensed criminals, nor any comparison to the number of shooting incidents involving the licensed versus the criminally unlicensed.
Ah well, it's better than it could have been but it strikes me that the somewhat subtle overtone of the report was pretty solidly anti-gun.
I missed the actual video, but the web report sounds very similar.
Considering the station and the market, the report is not totally biased (which is surprising), but it does seem that the recent road rage incidents involving licensed carriers were the impetus for the report. Despite some views from gunowners, the overall tone of the report comes across as anti-gun ownership, although not overt and blatant. The fact that the recent shootings were the reason this report came out when it did lends credence to the anti-gun stance of the report.
It's the little things:
Notice that Chief Frazier has to "defend" himself.
Oooooo...it's secretive and scary. I suppose if it were a matter of public record, we ought to make library lending habits and public school records public as well. Oh wait, that's an invasion of privacy...(exactly).
Note that there's no reference to the number of shootings that occur due to unlicensed criminals, nor any comparison to the number of shooting incidents involving the licensed versus the criminally unlicensed.
Ah well, it's better than it could have been but it strikes me that the somewhat subtle overtone of the report was pretty solidly anti-gun.
I'm with Lynne on this one. I'm not saying that it's good. But it really wasn't as bad as I thought that it was going to be.
I caught it on DVR and watched it this morning. But I'm going to go back to the article for some quotes.
I thought that if the license is restricted, you can't carry it? Is that not correct?
I think that that's a good quote that we can use. Here we have a Chief saying in a round about way that just about every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. That I think is a good thing to get out in this state.
Now, I'm just taking the good parts, but then I guess that we can be glad that there ARE some good points that were made.
Maybe my new sunglasses were mistakenly replaced with rose lenses. But I didn't find it as "WATCH OUT, PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE AROUND YOU AND THEY WILL SHOOT YOU IF YOU'RE NOT WATCHING," type of a report.
I caught it on DVR and watched it this morning. But I'm going to go back to the article for some quotes.
I thought that if the license is restricted, you can't carry it? Is that not correct?
I think that that's a good quote that we can use. Here we have a Chief saying in a round about way that just about every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. That I think is a good thing to get out in this state.
Now, I'm just taking the good parts, but then I guess that we can be glad that there ARE some good points that were made.
Maybe my new sunglasses were mistakenly replaced with rose lenses. But I didn't find it as "WATCH OUT, PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE AROUND YOU AND THEY WILL SHOOT YOU IF YOU'RE NOT WATCHING," type of a report.
My first impression was what a ultra liberal b****. But she did point out that Massachusetts has some of the most "strict" laws in the country. She also pointed out that the consistency sucks in the state. Now I would rather have it be inconsistent about getting a license then not getting one at all, but come on. A certified instructor can't get a LTC. I am still against her but I believe she was not as destructive as she could have been.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,049
- Likes
- 9,615
Yet another great example of how you can say 100% truth and still create as negative an impression as you want. Remember, the average person knows NOTHING about guns.
"COULD" Very interesting word. Unless restricted she means. Course, that little tidbit would belay the fear factor. Of course, there is no mention that many departments ONLY issue Class A as they don't want to have to deal with all the lines drawn in the sand that change with the tide regarding the other licenses.
Um, NO. Statute law would take care of most of these incidents, the chief would have NO say. It's only the people who have a completely squeaky clean that the Chief can then have some manner of say. I wonder how many people realize that by law, something as seemingly small as "Failing to report a Hotel fire" is a mandatory lifetime BAN on so much as touching a firearm!
How many of the general public know that the police are not responsible for your safety? How many know that they can sit in the donut shop and ignore all calls for help and not be found liable for any harm that comes to you. And yet, given that how many of those people read that statement and agree with the chief regarding "need"?
So many major points are convieniently ignored.
1) How much does it cost this state in time and money to keep track of all those gun owners who have the cleanest of records?
2) How do crimes committed by licenced gun owners (ANY CRIME) compare to those comitted by the population in general? Perhaps Oakham is not only the most 'armed' town, but also the LEAST likely for you to have a neigbor who is criminal.
3) Yup, state law prevents getting a list of who is licensed and who isn't. Then again, try getting a list of parolled and released convicts who might be living on your street. Opps, can't get that information either. Which person whould you worry about more?
4) OK, two road rage incidents by licensed citizens are a sad thing. Yet, how does that compare to the underage abuse of handguns? If you took all the people from age 15-21 and divided by the number of age equivilent firearm crimes - how would that compare to all the licensed gun owners divided by the firearm crimes comitted in that same demographic? i think the answer would amaze most people.
5) Imagine the uproar if Driver's licenses were issued with the same unjust and unequal methods that gun licenses were.
First, you'd have 7 different licenses
A) Resident Class A LTC - Can drive anything you want under the federal limit (Similar to the .50 cal limit) Restrictions can be applied - driving at night, allowing passengers, etc
B) Resident Class B LTC - No large capacity high powered vehicles. No Radar detectors
C) Citizen Resident FID - No large capacity vehicles at all.
D) Alien Resident FID - same as Citizen, but you have to go through a lot more hoops to get it.
E) Citizen Resident Restricted FID - Bicycles only.
F) Non-Resident Class A LTC - Same as resident, but 6x more expensive and usually easier to get than most residents
G) Resident Machine-Gun LTC - Extremely expensive federally limited collector cars - only issued to federally licenesed collectors or police trainers.
Then, you would have restrictions on the LTC classes so everyone might have a different ability to drive. No Highways, Work only, errands and recreation only, etc.
And then, each of the 251 towns and citys would have their own method of licensing. Oakham would issue to anyone, who meets the law, the least restrictive license they could. Boston and Brookline would require their applicants to pass defensive driving courses that demand more than is required of their own officers and then only allow the use of the vehicle for recreation purposes.
But hey... This all makes perfect sense and will keep us safe right?
"COULD" Very interesting word. Unless restricted she means. Course, that little tidbit would belay the fear factor. Of course, there is no mention that many departments ONLY issue Class A as they don't want to have to deal with all the lines drawn in the sand that change with the tide regarding the other licenses.
Um, NO. Statute law would take care of most of these incidents, the chief would have NO say. It's only the people who have a completely squeaky clean that the Chief can then have some manner of say. I wonder how many people realize that by law, something as seemingly small as "Failing to report a Hotel fire" is a mandatory lifetime BAN on so much as touching a firearm!
How many of the general public know that the police are not responsible for your safety? How many know that they can sit in the donut shop and ignore all calls for help and not be found liable for any harm that comes to you. And yet, given that how many of those people read that statement and agree with the chief regarding "need"?
So many major points are convieniently ignored.
1) How much does it cost this state in time and money to keep track of all those gun owners who have the cleanest of records?
2) How do crimes committed by licenced gun owners (ANY CRIME) compare to those comitted by the population in general? Perhaps Oakham is not only the most 'armed' town, but also the LEAST likely for you to have a neigbor who is criminal.
3) Yup, state law prevents getting a list of who is licensed and who isn't. Then again, try getting a list of parolled and released convicts who might be living on your street. Opps, can't get that information either. Which person whould you worry about more?
4) OK, two road rage incidents by licensed citizens are a sad thing. Yet, how does that compare to the underage abuse of handguns? If you took all the people from age 15-21 and divided by the number of age equivilent firearm crimes - how would that compare to all the licensed gun owners divided by the firearm crimes comitted in that same demographic? i think the answer would amaze most people.
5) Imagine the uproar if Driver's licenses were issued with the same unjust and unequal methods that gun licenses were.
First, you'd have 7 different licenses
A) Resident Class A LTC - Can drive anything you want under the federal limit (Similar to the .50 cal limit) Restrictions can be applied - driving at night, allowing passengers, etc
B) Resident Class B LTC - No large capacity high powered vehicles. No Radar detectors
C) Citizen Resident FID - No large capacity vehicles at all.
D) Alien Resident FID - same as Citizen, but you have to go through a lot more hoops to get it.
E) Citizen Resident Restricted FID - Bicycles only.
F) Non-Resident Class A LTC - Same as resident, but 6x more expensive and usually easier to get than most residents
G) Resident Machine-Gun LTC - Extremely expensive federally limited collector cars - only issued to federally licenesed collectors or police trainers.
Then, you would have restrictions on the LTC classes so everyone might have a different ability to drive. No Highways, Work only, errands and recreation only, etc.
And then, each of the 251 towns and citys would have their own method of licensing. Oakham would issue to anyone, who meets the law, the least restrictive license they could. Boston and Brookline would require their applicants to pass defensive driving courses that demand more than is required of their own officers and then only allow the use of the vehicle for recreation purposes.
But hey... This all makes perfect sense and will keep us safe right?
I liked the part about Western MA towns. Must be also why our crime rate is so low too. [lol] [twisted]
Over all it cold have been a lot worse. I thing I wish that they had done also, was to include the total amount of people, in the state that have a FID and a class B. May be then the jerks up at the State house, would realize how many people in the state will vote against them.
I would really like to see those numbers. If close to 200,000 have a Class A, how many people do have some sort of license.
I would like to see G.O.A.L reach out to these people and offer a free years membership to get them started and interested in protecting their rights. I would gladly make a large donation in a case like that.
I would really like to see those numbers. If close to 200,000 have a Class A, how many people do have some sort of license.
I would like to see G.O.A.L reach out to these people and offer a free years membership to get them started and interested in protecting their rights. I would gladly make a large donation in a case like that.
I agree there since alot of your under 21 have an FID. I know most around here don't bother with the class B because we can get the A. I'm sure most of the sheeple would be horrified to see the actual numbers anyways.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
Some things to ponder that I've realized from the snews piece (or knew beforehand):
- She had NO WAY to know how many of the 194K LTC-A were restricted vs. those that CAN CCW legally. I don't think anyone can pull that info off the database numbers at CHSB.
- Also due to the 1998 law changes, almost every PO in MA is now required by their department to get a LTC-A. Most Feds probably got them too, as the state law is now rather fuzzy on what they can carry and when if they are carrying on the badge. [Back in 1978 when I joined the PD, our chief (100% RKBA-sigh, too bad he's deceased!) offered free LTCs to all his officers and ~50% refused to get them . . . they didn't care and had no desire to do more than carry the department issued piece on duty only.] Most departments put a current LTC-A (unrestricted) and DL as minimum requirements to get appointed to the job now. How many LEOs are in MA? How many of the 194K LTC-A are in non-LEO hands in MA??
- The 1 in 25 equals one on every T-bus, 10 in every sold-out theater was done for the value in scaring the sheeple that they may be in a place where the person next to them ("heavens forbid"
) could be armed!
- Post above was right, DV and many other crimes make one Statutorily BANNED. This has nothing to do with a chief's discretion or suitability standards.
- Total LTC-A/B and FIDs in MA (according to GOAL) is in the 300K category last I knew. Not a real large number . . . under the old system we had >1.5 Million LTC/FIDs issued! [But many of us had both and since earlier FIDs were for life, people who moved or died were also in those totals.]
- The head of the MCOPA who was interviewed was being "very nice" to us. I have read that one of his PERSONAL PLANKS during his election to that job was that he wants to BAN/RESTRICT (further) any/all civilian ownership of firearms!!
NOT a fair and balanced piece. Not a big a hatchet job as it could have been, but certainly not in our favor.
- She had NO WAY to know how many of the 194K LTC-A were restricted vs. those that CAN CCW legally. I don't think anyone can pull that info off the database numbers at CHSB.
- Also due to the 1998 law changes, almost every PO in MA is now required by their department to get a LTC-A. Most Feds probably got them too, as the state law is now rather fuzzy on what they can carry and when if they are carrying on the badge. [Back in 1978 when I joined the PD, our chief (100% RKBA-sigh, too bad he's deceased!) offered free LTCs to all his officers and ~50% refused to get them . . . they didn't care and had no desire to do more than carry the department issued piece on duty only.] Most departments put a current LTC-A (unrestricted) and DL as minimum requirements to get appointed to the job now. How many LEOs are in MA? How many of the 194K LTC-A are in non-LEO hands in MA??
- The 1 in 25 equals one on every T-bus, 10 in every sold-out theater was done for the value in scaring the sheeple that they may be in a place where the person next to them ("heavens forbid"
) could be armed!- Post above was right, DV and many other crimes make one Statutorily BANNED. This has nothing to do with a chief's discretion or suitability standards.
- Total LTC-A/B and FIDs in MA (according to GOAL) is in the 300K category last I knew. Not a real large number . . . under the old system we had >1.5 Million LTC/FIDs issued! [But many of us had both and since earlier FIDs were for life, people who moved or died were also in those totals.]
- The head of the MCOPA who was interviewed was being "very nice" to us. I have read that one of his PERSONAL PLANKS during his election to that job was that he wants to BAN/RESTRICT (further) any/all civilian ownership of firearms!!
NOT a fair and balanced piece. Not a big a hatchet job as it could have been, but certainly not in our favor.
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
I can burn it to DVD for anyone that wants a copy.
Though it was not "good" press I was expecting a bit worse.
My favorite stat that came from it all is a western mass. town that has something like 44% with active LTC
Anyhow it was great that this forum gets the word out so we all now whats happening in the news rooms.
Though it was not "good" press I was expecting a bit worse.
My favorite stat that came from it all is a western mass. town that has something like 44% with active LTC
Anyhow it was great that this forum gets the word out so we all now whats happening in the news rooms.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,049
- Likes
- 9,615
Oakham isn't really "Western MA". It's in Worcester County about as far west as Sturbridge.
Their web site isn't running much, but here it is:
http://www.centralquabbinarea.org/towns/Oakham/
Can see it's location on this map. It's in the yellow circle about 4 o'clock of center.
Their web site isn't running much, but here it is:
http://www.centralquabbinarea.org/towns/Oakham/
Can see it's location on this map. It's in the yellow circle about 4 o'clock of center.
And just how many people on that bus could be carrying illegally? That would seem to be a much more interesting statistic, since it's almost certain that the person who does something bad will be someone who's done it before.
Aside from the fact that the specific cases mentioned here aren't subject to discretion, but disqualified by statute, how many chiefs actually exercise what might legitimately be described as "discretion"? Almost none. They either accept that everyone without disqualifiers is "suitable", or that only someone with strong enough political connections to cause trouble is. Then again the later group are also the same geniuses who assert that carrying large amounts of cash or other valuables, which it's illegal to use lethal force to defend, constitutes a valid reason to issue an unrestricted license, but that legitimate fear of death or severe injury, which is the only legal reason to use lethal force, isn't an adequate reason.
Ken
I didn't say it was a great piece - just to clarify - however, it could have been a lot worse than what it was. Although there were numerous things she did leave out, she did say (as someone already pointed out) that we have some of the thoughest gun laws in the country and the chief has the power not to issue a license. One thing here that I didn't notice mentioned which I thought was really good. Lynne Roberts was denied an LTC. It was a WOMAN that was denied folks. If it had been a man, people would not have noticed that, or they would have shrugged and said, "oh well, he's probably done something wrong that he just isn't talking about" . How many people could look at Lynne Roberts and think she's committed some type of crime to keep her from getting an LTC? If there was a really good part of that piece, that was it. For the ladies on this forum...how many of you would have perked up hearing and seeing that? I would have. I would have wondered if I could have gotten one (if I wasn't already a gun owner). Back in the old days when I was a liberal feminist, I most certainly would have perked up hearing that.
I hadn't paid that much attention to all of it, seeing that it's irrelevant up here, but if I had, I'm sure I would've noticed.
Here's what I think of some of the legislation, and EXACTLY some of the phrases to use:
Same tactics
Well, I see that our anti-self protection senator, Patrick Leahy, has again shown that his true home state is Washington, D.C. He voted against legislation that would help keep you having reasonably priced access to means of protecting yourself.
Senate Bill 397 is about stopping frivolous lawsuits of companies in the firearms industry. Since some of the big city liberals know they cannot get firearms outlawed, they have resorted to frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt the industry.
This tactic is similar to suing Ford or GM because a drunk driver killed someone in one of their products. The bill does not stop defective materials or clear misconduct lawsuits.
Thankfully, Sen. Jim Jeffords has voted for it, and now it goes to the House. Rep. Bernie Sanders will hopefully vote for it, and help keep Vermonters safe.
Shame on you, Sen. Patrick Leahy. We will remember when your reelection comes again.
ROGER FARNSWORTH
New Haven
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...?AID=/20050813/OPINION/508130317/1006/ARCHIVE
Here's what I think of some of the legislation, and EXACTLY some of the phrases to use:
Same tactics
Well, I see that our anti-self protection senator, Patrick Leahy, has again shown that his true home state is Washington, D.C. He voted against legislation that would help keep you having reasonably priced access to means of protecting yourself.
Senate Bill 397 is about stopping frivolous lawsuits of companies in the firearms industry. Since some of the big city liberals know they cannot get firearms outlawed, they have resorted to frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt the industry.
This tactic is similar to suing Ford or GM because a drunk driver killed someone in one of their products. The bill does not stop defective materials or clear misconduct lawsuits.
Thankfully, Sen. Jim Jeffords has voted for it, and now it goes to the House. Rep. Bernie Sanders will hopefully vote for it, and help keep Vermonters safe.
Shame on you, Sen. Patrick Leahy. We will remember when your reelection comes again.
ROGER FARNSWORTH
New Haven
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...?AID=/20050813/OPINION/508130317/1006/ARCHIVE
Me and Lynne Roberts should go out for tea and bitch about the stupid issuing officers. Sporting and Target is a joke... Fooey!
