Post by: Mase on July 24, 2016, 12:18:44 PM
"In the 1990s, Massachusetts, like many other liberal states, banned a number of firearms by name and based on what cosmetic attachments they had. The state defined an “assault weapon” as any semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has a number of “features.” Rifles were banned if they had adjustable stocks or pistol grips or threaded barrels.
Well, this past week, the Attorney General made a stunning admission: Removing these so-called evil features is nothing but “small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.”
After admitting that features like a threaded barrel or pistol grip do nothing to make a weapon more lethal, the Attorney General issued an order essentially banning all semi-automatic rifles in the state."
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 24, 2016, 01:51:12 PM
the idiots are trying to say any rifle that has specific parts interchangeable with the specifically banned firearms (e.g., AK-47 and AR-15) are now being declared illegal.
Of note is that Massachusetts had 779 murders in the 2010-2014 period (FBI statistics). An AR-15 type rifle was used in a total of 2 of those 779 murders.
Post by: PaulS on July 24, 2016, 02:56:24 PM
Massachusetts also has an approved handgun list that is very limited. There are calls in congress to model the federal laws after the Mass laws. Why anyone would vote for a democrat is beyond me.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 24, 2016, 05:05:01 PM
Massachusetts also has an approved handgun list that is very limited.
one reason for the massachusetts handgun insanity is "consumer protection". The mass-compliant S&W M&P 9mm handgun trigger is complete crap.
It's sad that there are handguns manufactured in massachusetts that cannot be sold in massachusetts (and I'm also aware of a company providing handgun frame to Kimber, which does not a have a massachusetts-compliant handgun)
Post by: Dav8or on July 24, 2016, 10:54:00 PM
You see where they are going with this? As the years roll by and the Constitution, the founders and the times they lived in become more and more abstract, the interpretation of what the "scholars" say the founders meant by this document become muddy or irrelevant. Given enough time, the second amendment will become a collective right only.
It's sad that only now in these late hours before this election where we are faced with either Clinton or Trump, that some conservatives only now see the seriousness of the situation and desperately cry for Trump... because Hillary!!! Where was this conviction and concern at the beginning of the primary elections??!
Post by: LevelWing on July 25, 2016, 02:20:06 AM
Post by: Anthony on July 25, 2016, 04:41:20 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 25, 2016, 04:57:16 AM
More liberal/progressive tyranny and oppression for the law abiding citizen.
but guns are icky and scary
think about all those guns from Vermont commiting crimes in New York!
Post by: nddons on July 25, 2016, 05:57:41 AM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on July 25, 2016, 08:03:30 AM
This is just another way to remove guns from citizens. This will be fought in the courts and depending on how SCOTUS looks, will hopefully be overturned. The left is hoping that with enough bans that eventually guns will be phased out of the common person's hands. Criminals, the "connected", and our governmental overlords, of course, will still have plenty of them.
FTFY
Post by: Steingar on August 04, 2016, 01:19:02 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 04, 2016, 01:31:32 PM
I thought all you conservative types were big believers in State Rights? I guess you aren't such big believers when states don't go your way?
I would imagine most people are also big believers in the rights of individual people.
In what twisted little mind is it that thinks any State has the right for arbitrary irrational restrictions of the rights of individuals?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on August 04, 2016, 03:34:07 PM
I would imagine most people are also big believers in the rights of individual people.
In what twisted little mind is it that thinks any State has the right for arbitrary irrational restrictions of the rights of individuals?
The "liberal" mind.
Post by: bflynn on August 04, 2016, 04:41:06 PM
So much for the state that gave birth to the American Revolution.
And the rifle that won the Revolution. The famous kentucky rifle was accurate because it had a rifled barrel. The standard musket was smooth bore and the ball would quickly go off target.
Post by: LevelWing on August 04, 2016, 10:38:17 PM
I would imagine most people are also big believers in the rights of individual people.Is the Second Amendment incorporated? If it is, then MA cannot do this. If it is not, then they can unless their state constitution has a Second Amendment mirror in it. However, I believe Chicago v. McDonald made the Second Amendment incorporated, so based on precedent, MA cannot do this.
In what twisted little mind is it that thinks any State has the right for arbitrary irrational restrictions of the rights of individuals?
Post by: Dav8or on August 04, 2016, 10:41:29 PM
And the rifle that won the Revolution. The famous kentucky rifle was accurate because it had a rifled barrel. The standard musket was smooth bore and the ball would quickly go off target.
I thought we were talking about Massachusetts? What does Kentucky have to do with it?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 05, 2016, 04:02:17 AM
I thought we were talking about Massachusetts? What does Kentucky have to do with it?
type of rifle, not location of rifle
Post by: Anthony on August 05, 2016, 05:04:52 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 05, 2016, 05:21:34 AM
The Kentucky Rifle was actually the Pennsylvania Rifle.
wait for the question to become "What does Pennsylvania have to do with it?
Post by: Steingar on August 05, 2016, 01:19:54 PM
I would imagine most people are also big believers in the rights of individual people.
In what twisted little mind is it that thinks any State has the right for arbitrary irrational restrictions of the rights of individuals?
Hey look, States rights has been a pretty big mantra for conservatives for some time. I can't entirely disagree, not everything should be determined by officials in a distant Eastern city. So a State decided, based on its own problems and the will of its own people, to enact some firearm control.
I myself don't like it. I'm not in any way a believer in firearm control. Every firearm statistic I've ever seen has suggested, no demonstrated clearly that there is no problem with firearm safety or fatalities in the USA. The number of firearm deaths has been declining for some time, and the vast majority of cases are still firearm owners killing those closest to them. About half are suicides. Has been the case of years. So long as firearm owners are killing each other, I haven't a problem and think firearms should be available to whoever so wants them, hasn't been convicted of a felony, isn't under a restraining order and isn't being watched by the FBI.
But folks in Massachusetts feel differently. That's their right, as is their right to regulate exactly which firearms will be available in their State.
Post by: Steingar on August 05, 2016, 01:20:39 PM
I would imagine most people are also big believers in the rights of individual people.
In what twisted little mind is it that thinks any State has the right for arbitrary irrational restrictions of the rights of individuals?
Hey look, States rights has been a pretty big mantra for conservatives for some time. I can't entirely disagree, not everything should be determined by officials in a distant Eastern city. So a State decided, based on its own problems and the will of its own people, to enact some firearm control.
I myself don't like it. I'm not in any way a believer in firearm control. Every firearm statistic I've ever seen has suggested, no demonstrated clearly that there is no problem with firearm safety or fatalities in the USA. The number of firearm deaths has been declining for some time, and the vast majority of cases are still firearm owners killing those closest to them. About half are suicides. Has been the case of years. So long as firearm owners are killing each other, I haven't a problem and think firearms should be available to whoever so wants them, hasn't been convicted of a felony, isn't under a restraining order and isn't being watched by the FBI.
But folks in Massachusetts feel differently. That's their right, as is their right to regulate exactly which firearms will be available for ownership in their State.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 05, 2016, 02:25:38 PM
Post by: bflynn on August 05, 2016, 03:53:01 PM
ButfolksLAWMAKERS in Massachusetts feel differently. That's their right, as is their right to regulate exactly which firearms will be available for ownership in their State.
FTFY. The people have nothing to do with this. They may or may not agree with it, but that isn't really relevant.
This would be one of those areas where the state is prohibited by the Constitution from taking additional action. But we've screwed it up big time for so long that the screw up has become the norm. That how progressivism work. It's more boa constrictor than rattlesnake.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 05, 2016, 04:17:21 PM
FTFY. The people have nothing to do with this. They may or may not agree with it, but that isn't really relevant.
This would be one of those areas where the state is prohibited by the Constitution from taking additional action. But we've screwed it up big time for so long that the screw up has become the norm. That how progressivism work. It's more boa constrictor than rattlesnake.
maybe we can take it back. firearms were not regulated or restricted for hundreds of years. All this gun-phobia and irrationality is relatively recent.
However, in order to make progress, we'd have to have people be honest about their objectives and also be rational. Honesty and rationality have been entirely missing in the liberal anti-gun agenda.
Post by: bflynn on August 05, 2016, 04:19:44 PM
Post by: Anthony on August 06, 2016, 09:28:15 PM
Hey look, States rights has been a pretty big mantra for conservatives for some time.
But folks in Massachusetts feel differently. That's their right, as is their right to regulate exactly which firearms will be available for ownership in their State.
I am all for state's rights. However, there a few natural rights the states signed off on in the Constitution to fall under the Federal jurisdiction. One of them is the Second Amendment. The states agreed that this was a NATURAL RIGHT, NOT TO BE INFRINGED. Therefore this IS NOT A STATES RIGHTS ISSUE. Get a clue! Read some history.
It is not Massachusetts right to infringe on the Second Amendment. They agreed to the Constitution, and must abide by it, but liberal, activists courts have violated the Constitution for years, so they get away with it. They won't hold up to their contractual obligation, so should really not be a part of the Union should they?
Post by: Dav8or on August 07, 2016, 10:10:14 AM
maybe we can take it back. firearms were not regulated or restricted for hundreds of years. All this gun-phobia and irrationality is relatively recent.
However, in order to make progress, we'd have to have people be honest about their objectives and also be rational. Honesty and rationality have been entirely missing in the liberal anti-gun agenda.
Good luck with that. The majority of Americans no longer have any positive interaction with firearms anymore. As America becomes more and more urban and suburban, hunting goes away, target shooting becomes more and more difficult to do, more structured and less fun.
The only connection many people have today to guns is, either somebody sticking it in your face to rob you, you deciding you need you need one to keep people from robbing, or killing you and random bullets whizzing around the neighborhood from gang bangers. Not very positive. The utopian fantasy of nobody having guns at all, becomes more and more attractive to many.
Post by: Anthony on August 07, 2016, 10:24:06 AM
Good luck with that. The majority of Americans no longer have any positive interaction with firearms anymore. As America becomes more and more urban and suburban, hunting goes away, target shooting becomes more and more difficult to do, more structured and less fun.
The only connection many people have today to guns is, either somebody sticking it in your face to rob you, you deciding you need you need one to keep people from robbing, or killing you and random bullets whizzing around the neighborhood from gang bangers. Not very positive. The utopian fantasy of nobody having guns at all, becomes more and more attractive to many.
Yet we've had record gun sales since Obama was elected, and record numbers of concealed carry permits. Also, many states are going to Constitutional carry, or becoming SHALL issue. The legal gun community is alive and well especially with first time gun buyers, and women.
Post by: LevelWing on August 07, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
Good luck with that. The majority of Americans no longer have any positive interaction with firearms anymore. As America becomes more and more urban and suburban, hunting goes away, target shooting becomes more and more difficult to do, more structured and less fun.I'd like to see your data to back this up. I don't think this is true at all. As Anthony mentioned, there have been record gun sales since Obama has taken office and there are numerous studies showing that gun violence is actually decreasing and has been for some time. Hunting is alive and well as is recreational shooting. More and more people are stepping into the world of legal and responsible gun ownership.
The only connection many people have today to guns is, either somebody sticking it in your face to rob you, you deciding you need you need one to keep people from robbing, or killing you and random bullets whizzing around the neighborhood from gang bangers. Not very positive. The utopian fantasy of nobody having guns at all, becomes more and more attractive to many.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 07, 2016, 10:59:11 AM
Good luck with that. The majority of Americans no longer have any positive interaction with firearms anymore.
How many people own firearms?
how many people defend themselves with firearms?
how many people have been victims of gun crimes and don't own a firearm?
Post by: Dav8or on August 07, 2016, 12:21:22 PM
Yet we've had record gun sales since Obama was elected, and record numbers of concealed carry permits. Also, many states are going to Constitutional carry, or becoming SHALL issue. The legal gun community is alive and well especially with first time gun buyers, and women.
I do concede CCP states will boost firearms sales and ownership initially, but how many of these people will be repeat buyers, or gun enthusiasts, or politically active, or ever actually use their gun? I suspect many people buy guns when the CCP law is enacted for the novelty of it. Others likely buy because they feel threatened one time, but when the threat goes away, so does the interest in guns.
Again, defending yourself from a potential threat is not a positive relationship with firearms. It's being proactive against a very negative thing. In addition, buying a gun because it may well soon be banned isn't very positive either. When ever the Democrats start passing anti gun laws, people run out and buy guns, but how many of them are new first time buyers? How many of these new buyers run down to the range and become enthusiasts that weren't already enthusiasts?
The NRA has always had enough members since I've been a member (mid 1980s) to potentially decide who is going to be the next president all by themselves, yet the NRA is rarely much of a factor in any election. This tells me that continued gun ownership isn't all that important to a whole lot of gun owners. Other issues outweigh any 2nd Amendment issues.
I may have mis written. I never meant to imply that gun ownership was in decline, but rather that a positive relationship with guns is in decline. It's the positive relationship that makes all the difference in the voting booth.
Post by: Dav8or on August 07, 2016, 12:25:49 PM
Hunting is alive and well as is recreational shooting. More and more people are stepping into the world of legal and responsible gun ownership.
Sure, if you say so. I guess there won't be any trouble at all with all this anti gun legislation. Surely all these new owners will step up and call their representatives and vote pro 2nd Amendment, right?? All should be well then. Nothing to worry about.
Post by: LevelWing on August 07, 2016, 12:40:07 PM
Again, defending yourself from a potential threat is not a positive relationship with firearms. It's being proactive against a very negative thing.I would think that people taking the defense of themselves and their families and property is a very positive thing. That is one reason to own firearms.
In addition, buying a gun because it may well soon be banned isn't very positive either. When ever the Democrats start passing anti gun laws, people run out and buy guns, but how many of them are new first time buyers? How many of these new buyers run down to the range and become enthusiasts that weren't already enthusiasts?People rush to gun stores to buy guns because they are afraid of losing that right. It's something that they've never really thought of being potentially taken away before and now that it's becoming a real threat, people want to own guns. Others are just adding to their collections. Many of these people are first time firearms owners but that doesn't make them irresponsible. Many will in fact go to the range and become proficient in them and many won't.
The NRA has always had enough members since I've been a member (mid 1980s) to potentially decide who is going to be the next president all by themselves, yet the NRA is rarely much of a factor in any election. This tells me that continued gun ownership isn't all that important to a whole lot of gun owners. Other issues outweigh any 2nd Amendment issues.You say that and yet when legislation came up after Sandy Hook, there was a mass outcry to stop it, and it worked.
I may have mis written. I never meant to imply that gun ownership was in decline, but rather that a positive relationship with guns is in decline. It's the positive relationship that makes all the difference in the voting booth.I still disagree with this. Perhaps you should define what you mean by a "negative relationship with guns" because based on what you've said above, I don't think that's a good definition. I would argue that any relationship with a gun that is not for an illegal purpose is a positive one. In other words, home defense, hunting, recreation, etc., are all positive relationships with guns.
Post by: Steingar on August 08, 2016, 07:57:16 AM
How many people own firearms?
Last semi-reliable statistic I saw suggested one hundred million.
how many people defend themselves with firearms?
I truly have no idea. At least one study suggested the defense rate at one out of five per year.
how many people have been victims of gun crimes and don't own a firearm?
Despite what you see in the media, surprisingly few. Most firearm fatalities occur to owners and those close to them.
Post by: Anthony on August 08, 2016, 08:20:44 AM
I do concede CCP states will boost firearms sales and ownership initially, but how many of these people will be repeat buyers, or gun enthusiasts, or politically active, or ever actually use their gun? I suspect many people buy guns when the CCP law is enacted for the novelty of it. Others likely buy because they feel threatened one time, but when the threat goes away, so does the interest in guns.
Again, defending yourself from a potential threat is not a positive relationship with firearms. It's being proactive against a very negative thing. In addition, buying a gun because it may well soon be banned isn't very positive either. When ever the Democrats start passing anti gun laws, people run out and buy guns, but how many of them are new first time buyers? How many of these new buyers run down to the range and become enthusiasts that weren't already enthusiasts?
The NRA has always had enough members since I've been a member (mid 1980s) to potentially decide who is going to be the next president all by themselves, yet the NRA is rarely much of a factor in any election. This tells me that continued gun ownership isn't all that important to a whole lot of gun owners. Other issues outweigh any 2nd Amendment issues.
I may have mis written. I never meant to imply that gun ownership was in decline, but rather that a positive relationship with guns is in decline. It's the positive relationship that makes all the difference in the voting booth.
My gun club, and all the other gun clubs in the area are closed to new members due to overwhelming demand for memberships. There are waiting lines at public ranges to get on a lane to shoot. Many of the shooters are now women, and first time gun owners. Demand for guns, and ammo has skyrocketed. CCW permit applications have increased exponentially. So I don't understand what you mean by "positive relationship"? I see all these facts as positive.
Post by: Dav8or on August 08, 2016, 09:51:29 PM
My gun club, and all the other gun clubs in the area are closed to new members due to overwhelming demand for memberships. There are waiting lines at public ranges to get on a lane to shoot. Many of the shooters are now women, and first time gun owners. Demand for guns, and ammo has skyrocketed. CCW permit applications have increased exponentially. So I don't understand what you mean by "positive relationship"? I see all these facts as positive.
That's great! It is certainly not like that here. Ranges are now far and few and gun stores even worse. I have to say that I don't know if target shooting participation stats are actually tracked by anybody, but hunting is and it has been in decline. So much so that states that depend on hunting licenses for revenue are hurting.
The concealed carry permit movement has been a real shot in the arm for sure, but I question how many true firearms enthusiasts and more importantly, how many solid 2nd Amendment supporters have been created? The problem has always been to get all gun owners to support the 2nd Amendment. It has been demonstrated again and again that a large number of America's gun owners (many who are Democrats) really don't care much about gun regulations and bans as long as it doesn't effect them, or the guns they own.
Lots of hunters and collectors really don't give a damn about the "ugly black guns", or the latest plastic pistol. So when there are proposed regulations against "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" they really don't care, or actually agree with the "common sense" regulation and not see in the trap before them. I fear many, if not most of the new CCP holders are in this group as carrying a gun is a novelty and almost none of them will use those those guns for protection.
Post by: LevelWing on August 09, 2016, 10:00:40 AM
That's great! It is certainly not like that here. Ranges are now far and few and gun stores even worse. I have to say that I don't know if target shooting participation stats are actually tracked by anybody, but hunting is and it has been in decline. So much so that states that depend on hunting licenses for revenue are hurting.Citation for all of that, please.
The concealed carry permit movement has been a real shot in the arm for sure, but I question how many true firearms enthusiasts and more importantly, how many solid 2nd Amendment supporters have been created? The problem has always been to get all gun owners to support the 2nd Amendment. It has been demonstrated again and again that a large number of America's gun owners (many who are Democrats) really don't care much about gun regulations and bans as long as it doesn't effect them, or the guns they own.
Lots of hunters and collectors really don't give a damn about the "ugly black guns", or the latest plastic pistol. So when there are proposed regulations against "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" they really don't care, or actually agree with the "common sense" regulation and not see in the trap before them. I fear many, if not most of the new CCP holders are in this group as carrying a gun is a novelty and almost none of them will use those those guns for protection.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on August 09, 2016, 10:54:09 AM
Citation for all of that, please.
(https://shedrowconfessions.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/outtaass.jpg)
Post by: bflynn on August 10, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
Post by: JeffDG on August 11, 2016, 11:16:26 AM
Yes. All of the Amendment of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated.Not formally they have not.
Amendment VII and parts of VIII have not been incorporated