-
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.
Why GOAL supports H.4376? Have they lost it?
- Thread starter CAESAR
- Start date
- Status
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
that's... dramatic.
i packed up and left and the lady and i could not be happier. i haven't forgot you guys however, i regularly donate to comm2a, in fact i showed up last weekend and threw down another $20. missed the raffle? whatever, here's $20 anyway. i remember how hard it sucked there, but i'm no masochist and when the opportunity presented itself to get that shit out of my life? you're god damn right i'll take that opportunity.
the post i quoted is a perfect example of gun owner in-fighting and how the antis have been able to ram it up your poop-chute/down your throat in MA.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,923
- Likes
- 23,513
Good luck with your fight, I am sure Paul Revere and his friends are proud, although those dudes were shooting by now...
I am happy that I broke my ass to move out of MA. I am picking up my second suppressor tonight, couldn't have done that while still living in MA.
Last edited:
Fleeing from MA is a chance to improve one's quality of life. there is no basis to criticize one who leaves MA and likewise for staying in MA. Reality is that fleeing MA does not fix the problem, it simply fixes the problem for one person.
I'm not criticizing those who fled from MA, but I also don't like to hear how those who fled have found a solution. You didn't find a solution....you found a temporary band-aid. I too will be leaving MA in approx 2-3 years, largely because I find the band-aid solution appealing too.
The real problem IMO is not whether the moonbat illness of MA will harm me directly....this is very unlikely. The danger MA poses is to the coming generations who may be stripped of their rights before being born and thus are unable to advocate for themselves. So long as I am in MA, I have an obligation to financially support GOAL/Comm2A so that the generations to come may have the best chance at keeping their 2A rights.
In coming years, the moonbat illness of MA could spread to other states (NH included). Thus the reason we keep up the 2A fight is not for us, but for our children, and in this regard our current state of residence is irrelevant.
I'm not criticizing those who fled from MA, but I also don't like to hear how those who fled have found a solution. You didn't find a solution....you found a temporary band-aid. I too will be leaving MA in approx 2-3 years, largely because I find the band-aid solution appealing too.
The real problem IMO is not whether the moonbat illness of MA will harm me directly....this is very unlikely. The danger MA poses is to the coming generations who may be stripped of their rights before being born and thus are unable to advocate for themselves. So long as I am in MA, I have an obligation to financially support GOAL/Comm2A so that the generations to come may have the best chance at keeping their 2A rights.
In coming years, the moonbat illness of MA could spread to other states (NH included). Thus the reason we keep up the 2A fight is not for us, but for our children, and in this regard our current state of residence is irrelevant.
Friday
NES Member
I think Comm2A get their golden case out of this, eventually. And it will get strict scrutiny in the 1st Circuit. It might take some time, unfortunately, but these battles are fought over years, not days and weeks.
Short of revolution, which seems unlikely, I don't see a quick way through this. If the Dems win the next presidential race, I think we're fooked for along time to come, as SCOTUS is due for a refill, too.
That prospect weighs more heavily on my mind than what's happening here in MA this week. The GOP is doing very little to help their cause as well. About the only palatable outcome is a D POTUS and a R controlled House. That way, nothing gets done for another 4 years.
Short of revolution, which seems unlikely, I don't see a quick way through this. If the Dems win the next presidential race, I think we're fooked for along time to come, as SCOTUS is due for a refill, too.
That prospect weighs more heavily on my mind than what's happening here in MA this week. The GOP is doing very little to help their cause as well. About the only palatable outcome is a D POTUS and a R controlled House. That way, nothing gets done for another 4 years.
ntomsw
Banned
Yep. I also am a monthly supporter of Comm2A.
Also this.
Again, I made a statement about be careful what you say about Goal. That was it. I would also say the same thing in regards to abortion or religion threads as well.
They don't end well here.
If that means I talk shit or that I run away, so be it.
I hope this is not too "off topic".
I would like to thank the large numbers of people,( from NES in particular), that went to the meetings, wrote the letters and emails in what many thought was a fight that was "fixed from the beginning".
One of the postives that came out of this ( for me personally) was meeting a lot of people that
not only were "cool" , but that fought a fight in which victory was anything but possible.
IT's hard winning a "match " when the center judge doesn't like you.
NO , I am not happy with the bill, but perhaps we CAN build on the "successes" that we have.
I think that we should start to focus on ways to get some more "victories" in November.
ggboy
I would like to thank the large numbers of people,( from NES in particular), that went to the meetings, wrote the letters and emails in what many thought was a fight that was "fixed from the beginning".
One of the postives that came out of this ( for me personally) was meeting a lot of people that
not only were "cool" , but that fought a fight in which victory was anything but possible.
IT's hard winning a "match " when the center judge doesn't like you.
NO , I am not happy with the bill, but perhaps we CAN build on the "successes" that we have.
I think that we should start to focus on ways to get some more "victories" in November.
ggboy
Ah, the old "Waterloo" move.
Knowing when the deck is stacked and you have time to evade is always a good move. MA guns laws are built on a foundation of sand. Anybody who says otherwise is either delusional or glutton for punishment and frustration. Sure, you'll get a win here and there but the lipstick is on the mirror.
Love this! Says what I have been thinking very well. The point made earlier about not being able to get more than a few hundred protestors at the State House made me think that if people did stay and fight those numbers would be much better but the "MASS" exodus has taken many of the best fighters and strongest pro-2A people out of the fight because they are gone.
I can't say I haven't considered getting out myself, but it always comes back to my kids and grandkids who are here and my responsibility to keep fighting for their futures.
As a GOAL Board member I have been called traitor, communist, collaborator and brainless in the last few weeks. I have answered 2 phone calls from "Anonymous" with blocked caller ID who have suggested in one case that I watch my back and in the other case suggested that I had carnal knowledge of Speaker DeLeo.
Unless people start to understand that supporters of the 2nd Amendment come in D’s and R’s, Conservative and Liberal, fat and skinny, ugly and fair then the battle will never be about the 2A and always about the wrong focus. If people think that all the support GOAL got in the last months was purely from Conservative Republicans then they need to rethink a few things.
WE lost many of our freedoms one bite at a time over many years and we will not regain them in one massive push. The gun owners of Massachusetts took several good bites out of this elephant in the last couple months and I do not feel we have a victory, but we are not worse off and in some areas we are better off. We very easily could be in the same boat as NY or Connecticut right now, we could very easily be like California, but we are not. That is because of a very vocal minority who are not ready to run and then join the throngs condemning those who have stayed behind.
For the moment, I choose to stand and fight, while my enemies seek to destroy what I fight for and my allies pile shit on my head and call me "traitor, communist, collaborator and brainless".
Excuse me while a take a shower.
Great read
In April, the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin gun control proposal. In the wake of its defeat many asked why gun owners and their organizations resisted so limited a measure. Granted, it would have had little but symbolic benefit. Its core was to require background checks at gun shows (which Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded involved a whole 0.8 percent of crime guns) and on Internet gun sales (a miniscule proportion, most of which probably go through licensed dealers anyway). But why not accept something so modest, in light of the draconian ideas then being floated as alternatives
Understanding the rejection requires understanding gun owners’ shared experiences. Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.
Back in 1976, Pete Shields, chairman of what is today the Brady Campaign, candidly laid out the blueprint for The New Yorker:
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
The group’s first target was “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive small revolvers, alleged to be criminals’ preferred gun. When that approach gained traction, Shields shifted to a larger target, claim that criminals were now using “expensive, but small pistols,” so all small pistols had to be banned. “Concealability is the key,” he now explained.
As the years passed, it became apparent that this was going nowhere; a different first “slice” would have to be found. In 1990, Violence Policy Center (VPC) announced that it had found it. The debate must be switched from small handguns to large “assault rifles.”
Handguns, VPC explained, had become a media and political nonissue, while calls to outlaw “assault rifles” would benefit from mistaken impressions, i.e., “the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” That rifles of all types were involved in about 300 homicides a year was beside the point. The search was for a target of opportunity, not a solution to crime.
The major gun control organizations bought the idea, to the point of changing their names to replace “handgun” with “gun.” Pete Shields’ group, Handgun Control, Inc., became the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.
The change underscored a lesson gun owners had already learned. Their opponents would go for any target of opportunity—if handgun restrictions didn’t fly, try to restrict rifles—and use that as a foundation to take more in the future. Any “reasonable compromise” would simply be a first step in a long campaign to make firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.
Take the example of California. There, 1920s legislation required a permit for concealed carry of a firearm, required dealers to report handgun sales to the state, and imposed a one-day waiting period for handgun sales.
The one-day wait was meant to impede “crimes of passion,” but in 1955 it was increased to three days, in 1965 to five days, and in 1975 to 10 days.
Open carry of a firearm was initially allowed. In 1967, open carrying of loaded guns was prohibited. In recent years, open carrying even of unloaded guns was forbidden in incorporated areas. The mere sight of an unloaded gun was apparently too much for the California legislature to tolerate.
In 2001, dealers were forbidden to sell handguns that were not approved by the government, after rigorous laboratory testing, funded by the manufacturer. Every slight variation, even changes in color or finish, required a new certification. The tests actually had nothing to do with reliability or safety, as evidenced by the exemption of law enforcement firearms from them.
Along the way, the state banned “assault weapons,” magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and private gun sales that didn’t go through dealers. In 1999, “one gun a month” was enacted, for no discernible reason (why would a gun runner pick the most tightly regulated state in the West as his source?)
Today, the weapons regulation portion of the California Penal Code Annotated spans over 1,050 pages, yet at last count 68 more gun control measures are pending in the legislature. No matter how much the advocates of gun control get, it will never be enough. Or try New Jersey, which requires a license to own guns, plus a separate permit for each handgun. Carrying open or concealed is in practice forbidden (the legal standard for a permit is “urgent necessity”), carrying of hollow-point bullets is subject to complex rules, and magazines are limited to 15 rounds.
That’s not enough, apparently, since the New Jersey legislature is considering bills to cut the magazine limit to five rounds, and to require psychiatric evaluations and home inspections before issuance of the firearm ownership license. Recently three legislators had an embarrassing “hot mike” problem after a gun bill hearing, in which someone proclaimed, “We needed a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
Or try New York, long considered to have the strictest gun laws in the country, including requiring pistol possession permits (issued at the sole discretion of police, with application fees as high as $340), carry permits limited in some jurisdictions to government officials and celebrities, and a 10 round magazine limit. Then came the Newtown slayings, and the legislature decided it must do something more. The legislation it rushed through reduced the allowed magazine capacity to seven rounds (effectively outlawing the many firearms for which seven round magazines have never been made), required background checks to buy ammunition, and greatly broadened its “assault rifle ban.”
New York’s Attorney General described this as “modest first step.”
So much for compromise.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ/
In April, the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin gun control proposal. In the wake of its defeat many asked why gun owners and their organizations resisted so limited a measure. Granted, it would have had little but symbolic benefit. Its core was to require background checks at gun shows (which Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded involved a whole 0.8 percent of crime guns) and on Internet gun sales (a miniscule proportion, most of which probably go through licensed dealers anyway). But why not accept something so modest, in light of the draconian ideas then being floated as alternatives
Understanding the rejection requires understanding gun owners’ shared experiences. Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.
Back in 1976, Pete Shields, chairman of what is today the Brady Campaign, candidly laid out the blueprint for The New Yorker:
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
The group’s first target was “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive small revolvers, alleged to be criminals’ preferred gun. When that approach gained traction, Shields shifted to a larger target, claim that criminals were now using “expensive, but small pistols,” so all small pistols had to be banned. “Concealability is the key,” he now explained.
As the years passed, it became apparent that this was going nowhere; a different first “slice” would have to be found. In 1990, Violence Policy Center (VPC) announced that it had found it. The debate must be switched from small handguns to large “assault rifles.”
Handguns, VPC explained, had become a media and political nonissue, while calls to outlaw “assault rifles” would benefit from mistaken impressions, i.e., “the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” That rifles of all types were involved in about 300 homicides a year was beside the point. The search was for a target of opportunity, not a solution to crime.
The major gun control organizations bought the idea, to the point of changing their names to replace “handgun” with “gun.” Pete Shields’ group, Handgun Control, Inc., became the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.
The change underscored a lesson gun owners had already learned. Their opponents would go for any target of opportunity—if handgun restrictions didn’t fly, try to restrict rifles—and use that as a foundation to take more in the future. Any “reasonable compromise” would simply be a first step in a long campaign to make firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.
Take the example of California. There, 1920s legislation required a permit for concealed carry of a firearm, required dealers to report handgun sales to the state, and imposed a one-day waiting period for handgun sales.
The one-day wait was meant to impede “crimes of passion,” but in 1955 it was increased to three days, in 1965 to five days, and in 1975 to 10 days.
Open carry of a firearm was initially allowed. In 1967, open carrying of loaded guns was prohibited. In recent years, open carrying even of unloaded guns was forbidden in incorporated areas. The mere sight of an unloaded gun was apparently too much for the California legislature to tolerate.
In 2001, dealers were forbidden to sell handguns that were not approved by the government, after rigorous laboratory testing, funded by the manufacturer. Every slight variation, even changes in color or finish, required a new certification. The tests actually had nothing to do with reliability or safety, as evidenced by the exemption of law enforcement firearms from them.
Along the way, the state banned “assault weapons,” magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and private gun sales that didn’t go through dealers. In 1999, “one gun a month” was enacted, for no discernible reason (why would a gun runner pick the most tightly regulated state in the West as his source?)
Today, the weapons regulation portion of the California Penal Code Annotated spans over 1,050 pages, yet at last count 68 more gun control measures are pending in the legislature. No matter how much the advocates of gun control get, it will never be enough. Or try New Jersey, which requires a license to own guns, plus a separate permit for each handgun. Carrying open or concealed is in practice forbidden (the legal standard for a permit is “urgent necessity”), carrying of hollow-point bullets is subject to complex rules, and magazines are limited to 15 rounds.
That’s not enough, apparently, since the New Jersey legislature is considering bills to cut the magazine limit to five rounds, and to require psychiatric evaluations and home inspections before issuance of the firearm ownership license. Recently three legislators had an embarrassing “hot mike” problem after a gun bill hearing, in which someone proclaimed, “We needed a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
Or try New York, long considered to have the strictest gun laws in the country, including requiring pistol possession permits (issued at the sole discretion of police, with application fees as high as $340), carry permits limited in some jurisdictions to government officials and celebrities, and a 10 round magazine limit. Then came the Newtown slayings, and the legislature decided it must do something more. The legislation it rushed through reduced the allowed magazine capacity to seven rounds (effectively outlawing the many firearms for which seven round magazines have never been made), required background checks to buy ammunition, and greatly broadened its “assault rifle ban.”
New York’s Attorney General described this as “modest first step.”
So much for compromise.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ/
Last edited:
since i know you personally, and i know you're one of the good guys i've got to say i'm disgusted by the people calling you and threatening you or saying other nasty shit to you. anonymously, of course. let it roll off your back, man--they are just cowards.
Yes GOA and JPFO are much better when it comes to the 2A. Unfortunatly they don't have the numbers of the NRA, if they did we probably would'nt be as deep in the hole as we are.
Thought this was interesting:
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20140801/NEWS/140809730/1994/NEWS/?Start=1
Haven't read any other news reports on this yet... but this one seems to be separating the NRA and GOAL, as opposed to the usual NRA == GOAL.
I think the question to ask is not whether we actually "won" here, but rather, does GOAL "win" or gain anything by declaring their support of the bill? Will this stance make GOAL seem like a "reasonable" (from a moonbat perspective) organization to work with? Will this give them more traction and legitimacy for getting things done in the future? Or will it hurt GOAL because they might be seen as flip-floppers or dishonest if they later try to remove the bad parts of the bill?
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20140801/NEWS/140809730/1994/NEWS/?Start=1
Haven't read any other news reports on this yet... but this one seems to be separating the NRA and GOAL, as opposed to the usual NRA == GOAL.
I think the question to ask is not whether we actually "won" here, but rather, does GOAL "win" or gain anything by declaring their support of the bill? Will this stance make GOAL seem like a "reasonable" (from a moonbat perspective) organization to work with? Will this give them more traction and legitimacy for getting things done in the future? Or will it hurt GOAL because they might be seen as flip-floppers or dishonest if they later try to remove the bad parts of the bill?
Last edited:
MaverickNH
NES Member
"The bill includes numerous other provisions related to school safety, mental health, universal background checks, enhanced penalties for gun crimes and more."
When/where does the text of the Bill emerge?
When/where does the text of the Bill emerge?
Palladin
NES Member
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4376
you have to match up the Bill, with the current laws already in effect, paragraph, by paragraph
Bottom line is that gun owners are outnumbered by liberal progressives by at least 5 to 1 in Mass.
The majority of people here don't like guns, don't own guns, and think more gun laws are better.
And, to compound the problem, the government is about 90% democratic, which has "gun violence" as a major part of their "message".
I have lived here since the early 1950's, and the state has gone far left liberal progressive.
It may take 3-4 generations to change it.
The majority of people here don't like guns, don't own guns, and think more gun laws are better.
And, to compound the problem, the government is about 90% democratic, which has "gun violence" as a major part of their "message".
I have lived here since the early 1950's, and the state has gone far left liberal progressive.
It may take 3-4 generations to change it.
lancecolonel
NES Member
GlockJock
NES Member
Translation: "a smart man runs".
No spin job, pal. You said it. Back it up.
Look, we get it, all you guys who felt it in your best interest to leave. You had the same choice as me, yet, for reasons previously stated (family, friends, health etc), I made the choice to stay. I lived in Delaware, New Jersey AND New York when I was younger (but born and raised in MA)... And, after leaving NY, NJ and Delaware , I don't surf the net looking for gun owner forums down there so that I can thumb my nose at them and say "NYAH NYAH!... I moved cuz I'm SMART".
We "get it" that there are many here who fled. And those of us that didn't feel you'd be more productive by starting your own "I ran from Massachusetts" forum /thread whatever instead of glorifying your decision to us that choose to FIGHT.
I'm a Dorchester kid originally and believe me, I have more respect for a fighter than for someone who ran away then posts "I'M SMART" to those of us still fighting.
Whatever, dude, enjoy the ham and bean suppers at the church, with the cows and the great freedom.
I'm also enjoying being 10 minutes from the North End, Fenway the Garden, the beach, etc etc etc. New Hampshire is great for those who want to live there for the gun freedoms, I agree. But if you're gonna tell me Londonderry has the same quality of chicks as Faneuil Hall and BU/BC, etc?
Whatever. We're all thrilled for all of you who fled the state, and I'd spend more time with this, but I have to call GOAL and see if Jim needs help today, and then I have to go to work to help pay for my Comm2A donation this month.
Oh, and Happy Sunday Flea Markets too. I'll be at the beach. In Massachusetts.
FIGHTING tyranny. :thumbup:
What makes you think the bolded statement is not true? It's certainly the very strong impression I have after living in MA for almost 30 years.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,923
- Likes
- 23,513
Dude, stop justifying your decision to live in MA and just own it.
I will add, however, if you think gun laws are the only thing NH does right, you are better off staying put.
Justification.
ntomsw
Banned
Read it however you want. I don't need to explain myself to someone on the internet who thinks he knows what I meant when I typed that.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
I don't live in Londonderry. FAIL
Quality of girls? I'm married. Happily married.
Also shorten your posts. They are way too long.
- Status
