Hey, there! Log in / Register

Gun supporters protest new weapons restrictions; vow to fight jackbooted liberal tyrant officials

Maura Healey: Fascist or Communist?

Is Healey a fascist or a communist? Probably both, protesters say.

Hundreds of people converged on the State House today to protest Attorney General Maura Healey's decision to ban the sale of more types of semi-automatic rifles in Massachusetts and demand she rip her order up.

At a rally organized by the Gun Owners Action League, speakers warned Healey is setting gun owners up for arrest when she backtracks on her promise not to prosecute anybody for weapons purchased before her new ban went into effect; they don't trust her promise not to go after people who bought the guns before she issued her new diktat.

Speakers warned that if Healey wins, liberals will march across the country to seize America's guns no matter what the Second Amendment says.

And if Healey really wants to enforce her new regulation, GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace said, let her do it herself - don't make "our brothers and sisters in blue" demean themselves, he said.

Although none of the speakers, who included several pro-gun legislators, did so, people in the crowd called for Healey's arrest, breaking out into a short series of "Lock her up!" chants. "Put her in jail with Hillary!" one man added.

Maura Healey for prison

A mention of Donald Trump being endorsed by the NRA brought a loud cheer. A mention of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh brought jeers, especially after Wallace mused about all "the felons he's been hanging around with." Wallace also said the assembled gun owners on Beacon Street meant "this is probably the safest time in Boston history!"

Black rifles matter
Trumping dead people
Come and take our guns
Refugees suck
Healey for Harbor
Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Ad:

Comments

up
Voting closed 0

They aren't protesting for "assault weapons", they are protesting the fact that guns purchased that were within the Assault Weapons Ban parameters are now magically declared illegal. Use another example of something you do every day being retroactively banned because of a new interpretation.

Furthermore, Laws are to be discussed and voted in a public forum, not "declared", whether you agree or disagree with the content. We aren't under a dictatorship, we are free people.

up
Voting closed 0

What will happen when a bunch of these assault rifles start getting into the hands of kids like hand guns are now? What about our right to feel safe in our city neighborhoods? Who NEEDS an assault rifle? Yes, terrorists and mass killers do. What about uzi's and machine guns? Need those in your night stand, too? Sorry, but you do not have the right to turn our society into a permanently terrifying place.

As to "Lock her up," that is lynch mob mentality.

up
Voting closed 0

They're not assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire, can go single or auto, but I think the newer ones (military) go three shot bursts.
Calm down, anon, she's overstepping the law, I think.
OH.
BTW...if she parted her hair a bit lower on the right, that moustache does add a certain 'look' to her.
Historically, you-know-who was a big gun grabber.

up
Voting closed 0

The Constitution does not guarantee your "right to feel safe in your city neighborhood". It does however limit the power of government to decide who can own a scary-looking gun. That decision is left to the individual.

up
Voting closed 0

There is a state law, and I do not know the name or exact words, that says you have the right to peace and quiet at home. If your neighborhood is filled with the noises of gun shots and sirens, there is no peace and quiet at home. If you don't live in an inner city neighborhood, you can not relate.

up
Voting closed 3

When the constitution was written we lived in a different world. Firearms did not have the fire-power they do now. As to the second amendment: it can be repealed just like the 19th was. Let's do a better job of protecting society, while allowing hunters, law enforcers, and those with genuine need for personal protection to own and use guns, as long as they are licensed and trained.

up
Voting closed 0

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons. Gun manufacturers, however, make and market what they call “state compliant” versions with minor tweaks to various parts of the weapon. Copycat guns are sold, for example, without a flash suppressor or with a fixed instead of folding stock. These changes do not make the weapon any less lethal and the weapons remain illegal.

Snopes

up
Voting closed 0

When the constitution was written, we lived in a different world. The Internet had not been invented, therefore, the 1st amendment shouldn't apply.

up
Voting closed 0

The hope of wicked tyrants endures throughout the generations-the founders knew too well.

up
Voting closed 0

Get it right. "Assault Rifle" is a made up term. The military also uses pistols and bolt action rifles. Are those also "assault weapons"? More people were killed by fists and feet in Mass every year than rifles so rifles are clearly a non issue. God forbid someone actually look up some facts. And just because you "feel safe" doesn't mean you are safe. You shouldn't be lulled in to this false sense of security as it's just not reality. Criminals aren't going anywhere and they don't care about any laws now nor will they in the future.

up
Voting closed 4

Here is the big thing here.

She re-defined what an assault weapon is and declared those who've ever bought or sold them to be felons who she will not prosecute at this time.

Here is what was originally on the gov website.

Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?

If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. But, as a matter of her discretion as a prosecutor, the Attorney General will not enforce the assault weapons ban against those who possess or transfer a copy or duplicate of a listed Assault weapon, if the weapon was obtained prior to July 20, 2016, when she issued the guidance.

And this is what it was changed to a few days later.

Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?

If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

You cannot call people felons retroactively!

up
Voting closed 0

She's not calling people felons retroactively. She's saying if you own one right now, it's a felony.

up
Voting closed 0

The point you were making is absolutely ridiculous, Massachusetts gun owners do not own machine guns. The A.R. 15 is not a machine gun, the A.R. 15 is not a combat rifle. The A.R. 15 is a semi automatic civilian rifle. Because this rifle resembles an M4 carbine which is a battle rifle uneducated people like yourself don't know the difference. I suggest you research this topic, knowledge is right at your fingertips it's called Google. Search the differences between an M4 carbine and a A.R. 15. This may help you understand exactly what you're talking about. If we send our soldiers in to combat with A.R. 15's we would lose every war lol. With the logic you're using on this topic it is literally the equivalent of saying "hey that guy looks Arab he must be a Muslim extremist". Ridiculous to judge something on it's appearance alone.

up
Voting closed 0

It's like the gay marriage thing - well I'm OK with it if you don't call it "marriage".

Who cares if it's technically not a "machine gun". It's sole purpose is to kill and maim on a significant scale. There is no rational purpose to own one of these things. Zombie apocalypse or even home invasion by half a dozen armed intruders are not rational.

up
Voting closed 0

I take it you expect to be voting on SEC disclosure regulations?

Food safety regulations?

Vehicular omissions standards?

Fish stocks and annual quotas?

Because you're informed and educated on each of those topics right?

Face it - it doesn't "sound good" to hear it, but putting everything to the public to vote is a recipe for disaster. You think the public is easily manipulated now, just wait until they have a ballot sheet that's 20 pages long, AND they have to fill it out every two weeks just because you can't accept that someone else is perfectly capable of making decisions for society at-large and they may not always agree with you.

up
Voting closed 0

Essentially you are saying you want the government to make decisions for you. There are checks and balances so that doesn't happen, everything can be challenged and changed.

I'm informed and educated enough to know that reinterpreting a standing law is overreach, and informed enough on firearms to know that she is not banning "assault weapons", but controlling law abiding citizens.

You're telling me the public is easily manipulated then telling me that it's for the greater good that AG Healy reinterpreted a law and made illegal what was legal the day before.

I'm not your stereotypical gun owner, I don't have a gadsden flag t shirt, I'm not going to yell at you and say something about her being hitler. I pose a valid argument without anger and that upsets you. Laws aren't made to be interpreted and reinterpreted as a single person sees fit. Whichever law it may be.

up
Voting closed 0

Reinterpretation of laws is exactly what the court system does, and you don't really get a "vote" in it aside from voting for the executive who appoints the people in robes on the bench. Either they interpret the law a certain way or they send it back to the legislature, where they tell them to re-scope the law, where the public still likely gets no "vote" aside from the vote they put in for their state reps and senators.

Other administrative, executive branches get to create law almost autonomously. I think the person was right in telling you that you could use a refresher on your understanding of civics.

up
Voting closed 0

Essentially you are saying you want the government to make decisions for you.

American citizens with voting rights choose the legislative and executive branches of our government (not "the" government, it's our government). Those elected officials, who we endowed with the power to manage our government, do so.

I'm informed and educated enough to know that reinterpreting a standing law is overreach

You're clearly not very well informed then. Laws are reinterpreted all the time as new information comes in, as other laws are changed, and as court cases are decided. I'm not arguing that Maura Healey's action on this particular case is wise or correct. But argue against the merits of this particular decision; don't (incorrectly) argue that existing laws and regulations aren't ever reinterpreted, because that's just bunk.

up
Voting closed 0

Things that used to be legal become illegal all the time and things that are illegal become legal. Gay marriage was illegal, now it's legal. Online poker used to be legal, now it's illegal.

The law was publicly discussed and passed. We have an assault weapon ban law in MA. We've had it for years. However the definition of that law is up to interpretation. The executive branch interprets it as they believe it is intended to be interpreted. If you disagree, take it to court and have the judicial branch determine whether their interpretation is right or yours is. That's how we run things. If you don't like it, form a new government.

This is an interpretation of a passed law. That's not "dictatorship" and hyperbole like that suggests two things:

1) You have no idea what you're talking about.
2) You're not mature enough to safety handle the guns you claim to be allowed to have.

up
Voting closed 12

So was Martha Coakley incorrect in her interpretation for 8 years? You understand that a new interpretation of the same law is a dangerous precedent, no matter the subject of said law.

up
Voting closed 0

That's why they're called "interpretations".

If you want the law to be black and white and bulletproof and completely 100% clear, then you may as well dismiss your humanity.

up
Voting closed 0

What are you talking about? It's literally been going on since the nation was founded!

Freeing the slaves of the American south by use of the Emancipation Proclamation declaring them free was an executive order based on an interpretation of the Constitution.

Truman took control of the steel mills by executive order. Just straight up claimed that it was his duty in the interests of the country.

AND...he subsequently lost in court over that one because that's the role of the judiciary, as I've said at least once before here. Except the judiciary in MA has upheld the AG on determinations like this before, specifically even around gun control...so I'm betting you won't get your way by taking her to court.

And if you're upset that there's so much room for Healey to make this determination of intent of the law, then complain to your legislator because THEY WROTE THIS LAW. Request that the intent of the legislature be made clearer so that Healey has less room to make determinations...but I'm betting that you won't get your way that way either.

So, if you won't get your way from any of the 3 branches, guess what: SOCIETY HAS MOVED ON. Join us, won't you?

up
Voting closed 0

Such as Bowers v. Hardwick replaced by Lawrence v. Texas. Supreme Court changes from affirming the business of government to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults to kicking the government out of bedrooms. Dangerous precedent? No. New interpretation which corrected laws which had always been wrong? Yes.

up
Voting closed 3

Say it with me, representative democracy. Again, representative democracy. She was literally elected by a majority to be the representative of the people who interprets the laws and takes legal action on behalf of the commonwealth. If you don't like the way she does it, don't vote for her next time. Throwing around nonsense and calling it a dictatorship only shows we need to work a little harder on the Social Studies standards in schools.

up
Voting closed 0

If you want to be literal, Maura Healey received 1,280,513 in her '14 AG win. In '14, there were 5,354,940 voting-age residents in the state of Massachusetts. So, she wasn't literally elected by a majority, as she only received 23.9% of votes. (And if you want to limit it to registered voters, which were 4,301,118 in '14, she 29.7% of the votes)

up
Voting closed 0

People who don't vote are abstaining and those votes go with the majority who did vote. Can't be bothered to vote means you are agreeing to whatever outcome of the vote you get.

up
Voting closed 0

You cannot say someone LITERALLY got more than 50% of the vote if they didn't ACTUALLY get over 50% of the vote. Obviously she received a majority of votes cast, but using LITERALLY when she didn't LITERALLY get over 50% of registered voters is false.

up
Voting closed 0

The AWB was well understood and followed by law-abiding citizens for years, when Healey suddenly decided to move the goalposts. It's gross overreach with no legislation or due process.

Please educate yourself on the difference between an "assault rifle" (a clearly defined term) and the nebulous definition of "assault weapon."

up
Voting closed 0

She's just grandstanding. I'm not sure what the new rules are. She just moved the goalposts. Is she saying that one rifle that's perfectly legal with a walnut stock, because, with a screwdriver, you can make it look scarier is now illegal? Hey, laws get written for a reason. The laws are very specific on what constitutes an illegal rifle.
She's just putting on a bullshit show.
IMAGE(http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g351/clubcarbrew/Ruger%20comp_zps7cqhbspw.jpg)
Please mentally add another 'p' to 'suppressor'.
Thank you.

up
Voting closed 0

Those are not identical in any way but the chamber.

up
Voting closed 0

They are functionally equal.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean, yes, they are identical, in so far as they both use an explosive charge to propel a dense object (of the same size and shape!) down a rifled barrel at a high speed. It would be equally useful to say that your '88 Camry is identical to the brand new Lexus sitting next to it in the parking lot. They're both based on the same frame, so what possible difference could there be, right?

up
Voting closed 3

I am curious which feature makes the two rifles so different?

Same receiver, same barrel length, same magazines. Of course you missed that.

Differences?

Flash hider: Protects night vision when shooting at night but nothing more.

Adjustable stock: Much like an adjustable seat in an 88 camry, allows people of different sizes to comfortably handle the firearm.

Pistol grip: Debatable if there is any meaningful improvement.

Optics: Can be mounted on either rifle readily.

What makes the two rifles so different in your mind? The 88 camry sure will be a whole lot lighter to lug around will be much more useful close range (that high powered scope is great for distance shooting but not nearby things) and will put out the same potent round at the same fire rate.

Seriously, there is no meaningful difference and all you have done is enlighten us to your ignorance of firearms. THEY ARE THE SAME FIREARM

up
Voting closed 0

Huh. I never really thought about this.

IF we, as a people, decide that mass-killings are an issue we seriously want to deal with, even to the point of curtailing individual liberties (not unheard of), do you think it's the detachable, high-capacity magazines that should be the focus?

I agree the laws, as written, seem ... out of touch with reality. If we, as a society, want to make real changes, we should agree to make real changes, instead of a bunch of loop-hole-filled, politically-expedient laws. If not, we should just shut-up and let gun de-regulation (somewhat contrary to the 2nd, I would argue) be the rule.

It's likely the presence or lack of flash suppressors was pretty irrelevant to the kids in Newtown; but I wasn't there.

up
Voting closed 0

I do not think revoking rights in order to gain a perception of safety is a wise choice.

As we saw in Nice it is not only firearms that can kill masses, the truck was likely more efficient (ew bad word use) than a firearm would be in the goal of killing many. A firearm would not have helped the killer in Nice in a meaningful way (again ew, what I mean is not many numbers additional) , tho a bomb would have.

The right to bear arms is not about hunting, it is not about sporting, it is about securing a more free state. The people have the right to own BEARABLE arms for a reason, restricting the citizens rights to do so opens up opportunity to future tyrants, tyrants like a would be Trump.

up
Voting closed 0

Nope, the dumb is on the other foot. See, I don't get personal. You do, because you fundamentally don't understand the subject.
A true comparison would be to compare a 1988 Camry painted grey to a 1988 Camry painted candy apple red (remember that?) with a spoiler on the trunk lid, spinner rims and racing stripes.
They'll both turn the same numbers at Epping.

up
Voting closed 0

spinner rims are extra tacticool and should be banned.

up
Voting closed 0

"Those are not identical in any way but the chamber."
The magazine and receiver are identical. One is scarier looking.
Like a Halloween costume.
It's the AG's new position that doesn't make sense.
I think she's just mad because the whole 'let's sue Exxon for talking about global warming' thing didn't pan out.

up
Voting closed 0

They are both a Ruger mini14 ranch rifle, same receiver, barrel, and trigger. Different ACCESSORIES.

up
Voting closed 0

To be clear. She is now saying BOTH ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE ONE OF THEM IS ILLEGAL.

up
Voting closed 0

There are far better choices for self defense (unless an entire army of zombies were after you), target shooting and hunting. Short of killing people and pretending to be Rambo because you never mentally surpassed the age of 14, what reasonable, practical reason would you buy that thing for?

up
Voting closed 0

Who cares why someone wants it. I can't imagine why someone would want to drive a Prius but that doesn't mean I want to ban them.

Be careful of banning things you dont like just because people don't "need" them.

up
Voting closed 0

I care why someone wants it. I care why someone wants something because of its intended use is to harm/kill others. I care because I have yet to see any reasonable, logical argument supported by evidence as to the use for one outside of harming others.

I don't care who buys a prius. I don't care because the intended use is transportation. I do, however, care who drives it.

Why are some people not allowed to drive? Why can I not buy a tank and drive it around town? Why can't I take my tank to a tank firing range? I want a tank! The government should not keep me from having one and using it as I see fit.

up
Voting closed 0

A 223 semi auto firearm is possibly the best home defense platform on the market. 223 being a high velocity but low weight round is likely to penetrate fewer walls than pistols or shotguns and the rounds low recoil makes it easy to keep on target.

What platform do you propose as superior and what are your qualifications to make such a claim?

up
Voting closed 0

Home defense? Against the aforementioned zombie apocalypse? If you need to fend off a robber? Yeah that thing will be super effective in the dark in the close quarters of most homes. You must have failed geometry.

As for my qualifications I'm not too good with a pistol. Fired fewer than 10 rounds my whole life. Hand me a good target rifle and I'll shoot quarters off your nose all day long. If i miss, it's because you flinched.

up
Voting closed 0

There is a reason swat/cops etc enter homes with rifles. They are more potent and much easier to aim/handle.

If you claim to be such a good shot with a rifle, why in the world would you want to use any other platform when defending yourself?

up
Voting closed 0

Guessing there's a reason that they use rifles (as you say - wall penetration which in a multi-person attack could be a huge issue) - plus the whole team assault thing etc.

If you keep a SWAT team on staff - fine - join them and use a rifle.

For me, if I chose to have a firearm at home for self defense in close quarters - I'd get trained on the use of the gun and use that. Just getting the damned thing out of the save in the closet would probably delay my response enough to get killed - to say nothing of trying to aim a rifle in the dark.

Love shooting when I get the opportunity - but consciously choose to not have a gun in the home.

up
Voting closed 0

Nope, which is part of why a rifle is so useful.

Can mount a light to the rifle, and post myself in my bedroom with no need to maneuver at all.

Cops have huge miss rates with handguns, civilians under stress are no different.

Now room clearing? No thanks, that is what the 5-0 is for.

How will you aim a handgun in the dark?

up
Voting closed 0

Your place must be MUCH bigger than mine. My bed is about 30 feet from all points of access. Not a whole lot of opportunity to get a gun out, load it, mount a light to it and "post" myself.

This is the problem - people watch too many movies and TV. You really think you're going to do that? I don't - you'll be subdued or dead while you're still fumbling with the combination on the safe - assuming you aren't stupid enough to keep a loaded, unsecured gun laying around the house.

up
Voting closed 0

Real stereotype-defying crowd you got there.

up
Voting closed 0

So because of a few pictures we are stereotyped? Since when does fitting into a stereotype mean that you should be denied rights because of a new, unlawful "interpretation" of an existing law?

up
Voting closed 5

A Constitutional right cannot be denied, as Constitutional rights are inherent. Rights are NEVER granted, thus can never be denied.... well, except maybe by God, but that is a whole nother thing.

Also, people have inherent rights, our government is granted powers - never the other way around. The right to bear arms is a right, not a granted power.

up
Voting closed 0

Felons can't vote in Massachusetts due to an initiative petition.

Lots of the same morons yelling OMG MAH GUNNNNNZ! also support voter ID laws designed to disenfranchise poor people.

States can make laws about voting, even though the right to vote is in the constitution. States can also make laws about your guns, and which guns you have, even though the right to have one is in the constitution.

up
Voting closed 7

Ones that aren't full of juvenile whining, threats, and other signs that attendees are too ridiculous to be trusted with a weapon?

Feel free to post them!

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/JUuiWPS.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

We had awesome turnout! Was great to see all you fellow felons!

up
Voting closed 0

Quick, we need more Gadsden flags! I don't think we have enough!

up
Voting closed 0

The Gadsden flag is that yellow-background thing that seems to depict a pile of dog poop, complete with stink-waves, which reads "Don't tread on me" across the bottom. The poop is actually supposed to be a coiled snake, but the other is what it always looks like to me, and the caption works with it either way. You'll see it on TParty pickup trucks, unless they are in the act of "rolling coal," in which case you won't be able to see the back of the truck at all for the noxious cloud of smoke.

up
Voting closed 0

Dog poop, eh? You might benefit from some fifth grade American History. Try picking up a book.

up
Voting closed 1

up
Voting closed 5

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

When I go to rallies, and I see someone holding up a sign with obvious grammatical errors or open calls to fascism, and we're on the same side, I usually say something. Otherwise, I assume they're going to be photographed and laughed at on the internet. The fact that there are a dozen of these photos here suggests that either the attendees of the rally (a) did not collectively have the mental firepower to spot the problem or (b) did not know that the internet exists. I'd say the likelihoods of both are even. I'm not sure which one is more troubling.

up
Voting closed 0

...they just don't give a shit what you think? Odd, but possible.

up
Voting closed 0

...or their inability to give a shit about what others think is part of what makes them damaging to a civilization?

up
Voting closed 0

There's a huge gallery on the NES forums posted by attendees themselves. Maybe they just don't care what you think? Whatever helps you feel smug.

up
Voting closed 0

30 year old gay man, not a gun owner. What she's done is deplorable and the only thing it will accomplish is costing tax payers millions defending the inevitable lawsuits.

up
Voting closed 0

Thank you for your support and understanding on what is actually being challenged.

up
Voting closed 0

Well, because it works both ways. Those protestors in the countless gas pipeline posts and other protestors are stereotypical too. Have a good day.

up
Voting closed 0

guys who don't like being told what to do, especially by a woman. Even if she's in charge.

up
Voting closed 0

Baker sucks, too. Ya happy?

up
Voting closed 0

Hey look adamg. A racist! Will you be deleting this comment?

up
Voting closed 0

To live in constant fear.

up
Voting closed 0

Not the best effort at drawing "across the aisle" support, but one person's office redefining a decade-old law in a way that circumvents the usual checks and balances required to change laws is not a great precedent.

up
Voting closed 0

"My rights trump your dead"? What's that supposed to mean?

Also, strange that someone in favor of gun confiscation is there.. ("Come and take it")

up
Voting closed 0

Black guns matter? [facepalm]. I think I have the Trump thing figured out, we'll see when he's inaugurated next January, but really...the 'molon labe' thing? You don't get that?
Maybe you should stay anonymous.

up
Voting closed 0

It means gun nuts don't care when their fellow gun owners shoot up a classroom full of 6 year olds. They value their toys more than human life.

up
Voting closed 0

The weapons she is trying to ban are the same ones used to maul down hundreds of people in the last few months. These weapons are not needed for self defense or sport hunting. They have one purpose: To kill as many people as possible.

The interpretation of the constitution that any and all weapons are allowed in any private citizen's hands is simply wrong.

We're tried the "give everyone a gun" approach to solving crime (as evidence by skyrocketing gun sales in the past eight years) and it clearly has failed horribly. Banning these weapons -- as most other countries do -- is good (and constitutional) policy. Sure, nothing will change overnight, but future generations will be better off.

up
Voting closed 3

Where in the constitution does it read that banning guns is legal? If they are solely used "to kill" why do police need them?

up
Voting closed 0

The AG isn't proposing all weapons be banned, only a small subset. Just like most speech is legal, but there are limitations such as threats, IP infringement, etc. There is no "slippery slope". No one is proposing an outright ban.

I don't understand why the gun lobby isn't willing to accept reasonable restrictions. Nearly all of my freinds own guns AND fully support some restrictions.

up
Voting closed 3

Did you ask your gun owner friends what they think of this directive? Did you read and fully understand it? Just curious. I'm liberal, own guns, and support reasonable restrictions. Nothing about this is reasonable, especially the way it was dropped with no warning or legislative process.

up
Voting closed 0

Please explain then why crime is at record lows in this country and keeps falling & why countries with the outright bans you're calling for seem to be facing the same if not worse types of terror attacks.

up
Voting closed 0

Why crime rates have dropped: Lead paint and leaded gas. As for why other countries are also suffering terror attacks, are you now saying that all the mass shootings we've been having are terrorist acts? I would agree with that, but there's no argument against gun control inherent in it.

up
Voting closed 0

Why not let the legislature write the laws?

up
Voting closed 0

Just like ISIS. Crackpots and jackasses.

up
Voting closed 0

It's scary and abhorrent wherever you see it- Islam, Christianity, Judaism and politics as well.

up
Voting closed 0

Healey said that 10, 000 of these rifles were sold last year. All to people who passed background checks and bothered to go through the states extensive licensing procedure.

Here are the most recent stats on people in Mass killed by rifles OF ALL TYPES in the four previous years:

0 people in 2011
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/.../crime-in-the-u.s.../tables/table-20

0 people in 2012
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/.../table_20_murder_by_state_types_of...

2 people in 2013
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/.../table_20_murder_by_state_types_of...

0 people in 2014
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/.../crime-in-the-u.s.../tables/table-20

So what's the point of banning a weapon that is rarely used by criminals at the expense of tens of thousands of licensed owners? Essentially, the plan is to ban the types of guns least likely to be used in a crime based on an emotional reaction to the least common type of crime (mass shootings).

It just doesn't stand up to logic.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, by your logic then, the "give everyone a gun" approach to solving crime works! Violent crime has gone down across the country in the last 8 years!

up
Voting closed 0

"The weapons she is trying to ban are the same ones used to maul down hundreds of people in the last few months. These weapons are not needed for self defense or sport hunting. They have one purpose: To kill as many people as possible. "

The Orlando shooting was NOT an AR-15, or an M14. It was a Sig. The manufacturers website describes it as (my recollection, not actual cut and paste) as 'designed from the ground up to be silenced, this battle tested weapon...' and goes on about Seals and stuff. It's a semi-auto version of one really serious weapon.
The guy bought it legally.
Oh, there's a youtube of the guy getting off 24 rounds in nine seconds. So, he has a fast trigger finger and the weapon is quite jam resistant.

up
Voting closed 0

but I wish we cared even half as much about other abuses of constitution, official corruption, etc. All other abuses seem to be accepted standard operating procedure in Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 3

There were a lot of people but no, sorry, there weren't nearly as many people as attended the Boston high-school walk out in March (see second photo), which wound up at the same exact place.

up
Voting closed 0

...and have been here since 9:00 AM. I walked around the crowd three different times, and have a view of a corner of the State House from the room where I'm working today.

This crowd never approached thousands, and I feel comfortable guessing it maxed out below one thousand. Certainly, the biggest crowd I saw was during my lunch break; at approximately 12:30, I think perhaps 300-400 people were there, and I'm trying to be generous.

up
Voting closed 0

12:30 was the LIGHTEST part of the crowd. Biggest crowd was at 1030. Guess you missed us.

up
Voting closed 0

Which still isn't "thousands."

up
Voting closed 0

I would say there was probably about 1500 to 2k at the peak. NECN reports thousands which is more credible than either of us in estimating crowd size.

up
Voting closed 0

Crowd estimation is tricky. I've seen a lot of rallies on the Common, and this certainly did not look like it was one of the biggest-- that is, in the multiple thousands. Let's wait for the official estimates. Regardless, even the media estimates are not coming in with "thousands."

up
Voting closed 0

Thousands are words directly pulled from NECN, they are not mine.

"Thousands gathered in Boston, Massachusetts, on Saturday protesting Attorney General Maura Healey's surprise extension of the state's assault weapons ban."

up
Voting closed 0

Except when it comes to crowd estimates?

As for the city or police, I think they long ago gave up providing official estimates.

up
Voting closed 0

Could you cite where I say that?

Why are you putting words in my mouth and continuing to attack my character adam? Didnt get enough out of it in your article?

up
Voting closed 0

... and that's because everyone who protests on National Park Service land, especially the damn National Mall, inflates their numbers. The NPS got sick of being called "shills for xxx" and stopped releasing their estimates.

Too bad, because their estimates are based on satellite imagery, thoughtfully calculated people/square cm grids, and were generally imperfect but not bad. Anyone who organized a rally knew that passing the clipboard was necessary for a better estimate, but NPS HAD to be good: future decisions about how many portajohns & marching routes were calculated off prior comparable rallies.

up
Voting closed 0

Adam I take it your baseless personal attack will be left to sit with no response to my own?

Dude, you are having a bad night.

up
Voting closed 0

But I no longer have the time because I need to dig up more scumbag news which you will continue to read for some reason even if it really irritates you.

up
Voting closed 0

These threatening calls to "lock her up" and "jail her" -extrajudiciously - resound of misogyny. Women need to remember their place and stop getting so uppity. Kinda like that Sharia law we keep hearing about.

up
Voting closed 0

Where are you getting the extrajudicious part?

up
Voting closed 0

After a trial. People yelling "lock 'er up!" aren't looking for that.

up
Voting closed 4

Did you ask them?

up
Voting closed 0

These people don't even get that the Governor can't fire the AG.

Meanwhile, you are appearing increasingly unhinged with each and every one of your compulsive posts. Perhaps it is time for you to move elsewhere - or, maybe, get help.

up
Voting closed 0

There is a legal process to remove an AG from office. No, it does not start with the governor. I do not recall any signs suggesting such actions. Where are they?

Of course it is not shocking the average citizen knows the exact process to remove the AG is, do you?

I would love to engage in a discussion where we do not attack each others character. What do you think?

up
Voting closed 0

And, just in case it's too hard to for you to scroll up:

IMAGE(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8707/28471798166_b0eb270c22_z.jpg)Screen">https://flic.kr/p/KnXpDQ][img]https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8707/2847179... Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.32.53 PM by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/145333444@N02/]

up
Voting closed 0

The AG can indeed be 'fired' tho it is not an easy task.

The AG if she has violated the civil rights of men and women in the commonwealth can also be jailed.

up
Voting closed 0

There is a legal process to remove an AG from office. No, it does not start with the governor. I do not recall any signs suggesting such actions. Where are they?

Don't want to address the photo I reposted for you?

The AG if she has violated the civil rights of men and women in the commonwealth can also be jailed.

1. The AG has not violated anyone's civil rights.

2. The AG cannot be artbitrarily jailed. If she is arrested, and charged with a crime, she can be jailed.

3. The AG cannot be fired for doing her job.

If you are impacted by the AG's interpretion of a law, and you do not think her interpretation is correct, fight it in court.
If you think she's unethical, work for her impeachment.
If she's commits a crime, she can be charged with it.

Only a fool or a totalitarian throws an officer of the court in jail for enforcing an existing law, even if that law is imperfect.

You don't like gun owners being stereotyped? Neither do I-- most of my family members and childhood friends are gun owners, and approximately half of them do not have their heads shoved up their asses about it.

But the other half do exactly what you're doing: moving the goalposts, fabricating "laws" or "regulations" to bolster your point, ignoring truths or outright lying about them. Of course people were calling for the AG to be fired and thrown in jail at the rally-- I heard it, hundreds of others heard it, social and traditional media have plenty of photos and vids proving it.

You are not helping your cause.

http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-...

up
Voting closed 0

1. The AG has not violated anyone's civil rights. (I cannot wait for the trial to find out!)
2. The AG cannot be arbitrarily jailed. If she is arrested, and charged with a crime, she can be jailed. (Where did anyone say otherwise?)
3. The AG cannot be fired for doing her job. (If in the confines of her job she violates her oath? Oh yes she can)

up
Voting closed 0

2. The AG cannot be arbitrarily jailed. If she is arrested, and charged with a crime, she can be jailed. (Where did anyone say otherwise?)

You did, DPM.

IMAGE(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8751/28445457271_851848d4cf.jpg)">https://flic.kr/p/KkCpqt][img]https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8751/2844545...

We don't throw anyone in jail because some rando decided that person "violated... civil rights." Shocking, but civil rights cases are mostly determined in civil court cases, NOT criminal cases.

Hell, most civil rights violations (racial discrimination in hiring, religious impositions, etc) result in a reversal in the policy & maybe compensation for damages/lost earnings. No one goes to jail.

If an investigation finds the AG violated her oath, then she could be removed from office for violating her oath, not for doing her job.

I don't have time for this conversation. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously in the future, stop being dishonest, and start here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

up
Voting closed 0

How does on get jailed in the United States without a trial (beyond exceptional outrages of course). Trial is an absolutely necessary first step to my statement and is to be understood as necessary without being mentioned. If you do not understand that, then well, I cannot help you.

My omission of calling for a trial does not mean I suggest bypassing trial are you simply being deliberately obtuse? Should I next time illustrate every step necessary to jail a person in order to ensure you do not think I suggest just tossing them in jail without a trial by their peers?

Your building a straw man to burn down. I made no such arguments and my words you quoted suggested nothing about bypassing a trial. I suggest you follow your own advice and follow your link.

Any other words you would like to put into my mouth? How about you adam?

up
Voting closed 0

Go back and read what I wrote about civil cases.

Now I'm done.

up
Voting closed 0

And you go back and find where I suggested jailing Healey without a trial. K thanx.

Unjustly jail someone and it will not be a civil case.

up
Voting closed 0

" No one goes to jail."

Miami-Dade Officer Arrested On Civil Rights Charges

Four Officers Arrested For Civil Rights Violations

Former Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Corrections Officer Sentenced for Civil Rights Violations

Buffalo Police Officer Arrested, Charged with Civil Rights Violations

Nobody? Just a smattering of random headlines for you. You are aware the AG is essentially our states top cop right? Looks like cops get arrested on such things fairly often. Ise your office to violate civil rights and jal is a very real possibility.

up
Voting closed 0

http://www.workers.org/wwp/from-ferguson-to-baltimore-jail-killer-cops/

Is the workers party calling for extrajudicial punishment when they fail to mention trial in this article? Of course not, it is an assumed inclusion.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you support restrictions on convicted felons voting?

Do you support voter ID laws?

Do you believe that there should be no age limit for voting?

What about cops taking cars, cash, etc. at traffic stops and never giving it back?

Oh, and should we even have a drinking age?

Just trying to see how consistent you are about your absolutism.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you support restrictions on convicted felons voting? Nope. Out of jail? Get rights back. Too dangerous to get rights back? Why are you out of jail?

Do you support voter ID laws? There is no right to vote. Do I support them tho? No.
Do you believe that there should be no age limit for voting? See above, no right to vote. Age requirements have been found constitutional. (now whether or not I think the constitution should be amended to protect voting is another matter)

What about cops taking cars, cash, etc. at traffic stops and never giving it back? absolutely not. needs to be put down with vigor.

Oh, and should we even have a drinking age? at bars? Sure. Within the home outside of child abuse? No. MA laws allowing the parents to allow a minor booze are quite appropriate. There is no right to consume alcohol at a bar.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you support voter ID laws? There is no right to vote. Do I support them tho? No.
Do you believe that there should be no age limit for voting? See above, no right to vote.

The 9th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States want you to take a civics class.

[edit: how could I forget the 9th?!]

up
Voting closed 0

They just called it Amendment 2 to be silly. According to Gun Nuts like Mr. 75 comments here, it is the only one that the founders thought mattered. The rest were just padding.

amirite?

up
Voting closed 0

Courtesy of Salon.

"Voting is not a right "

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/voting_is_not_a_right/

up
Voting closed 0

And Salon is the name of some Supreme Court opinion that SCOTUSblog forgot to cover I guess.

up
Voting closed 0

Here you go, as in my original point, am not arguing in support of that decision.

Supreme Court. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court ruled that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

up
Voting closed 0

You really are exceptionally dim about constitutional law.

What that decision said is that the ELECTORAL COLLEGE elects the POTUS! THAT is in the constitution as an exception.

IT DID NOT SAY THAT THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO VOTE!

You really do need that civics class: or some BIG HINT that the SECOND AMENDMENT is not the ENTIRE constitution!

up
Voting closed 2

Displaying your complete ignorance of the constitution yet again.

Ever hear of the Electoral College? In the constitution, that's the mechanism for electing the president.

Thus there is no right to vote FOR THE PRESIDENT.

There are, however, numerous voting rights outlined as MattyC has, above.

The fact that you are fundamentally ignorant of this is very telling.

Now go catch up with your militia.

up
Voting closed 0

I do not agree with the lack of a constitutionally enumerated right to vote and support efforts to fix it. Did you not read my post?

Does not change reality. There is after all a reason a number of democratic lawmakers are proposing to fix that.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/may/30/mark-pocan/us...

" There was news out of the U.S. Capitol on May 13, 2013 that U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, proposed to amend the Constitution to ...

Guarantee the right to vote.

Wait, what?

Pocan hasn't been in Congress even half a year. But he knows we have the right to vote, doesn’t he?

up
Voting closed 0

Courtesy of Salon.

"Voting is not a right "

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/voting_is_not_a_right/

up
Voting closed 0

The electoral college electing the president is in the constitution, hence this cherrypicked statement selected out of complete ignorance of the actual document.

That is not the same as there being no right to vote in general.

You really are a dimwit in need of a civics lesson.

up
Voting closed 0

Judging by the signs, their average IQ is pretty low, but still higher than the total number of visible minorities there!

(Also, in response to the "what about 'shall not infringe'…" sign: what about "well-regulated" does he not understand? Oh, wait, we conveniently ignore that part, eh?)

up
Voting closed 0

Gotta love the cracker complaining about constitutional rights can't understand the concept of the AG bring a separate constitutional officer from the governor.

Do As I Say Not Do As I Do Rednecks. Screw em.

up
Voting closed 0

In some states, the AG is appointed by the Governor and serves at his/her pleasure like a cabinet member. MA is not one of those states.

up
Voting closed 0

Clearly they're not up to speed on the MA constitution.
Perhaps they know more than the 2nd Amendment of the U.S.?
Doubtful, but don't worry, the NRA's boy Trump is going to abide by all the Articles of the US Constitution, even numbers 9 and 12.

Good Lord.

up
Voting closed 0

The gun nuts make it harder and harder for me to support gun rights. I support the 2nd amendment and want any law abiding citizen to be able to exercise their rights. But these wacky people and their dumb politics are pushing me away.

up
Voting closed 0

Why because of Adams scum bag coverage?

The rally was peaceful and approachable. A variety of tourists stopped by as they were passing the state house and asked what was going on. We were approachable and polite.

You prefer violence?

up
Voting closed 0

have you ever kept count of how many times there's an awkward pause at Thanksgiving dinner, and then someone brightly changes the subject to how tasty the mashed potatoes are, because something you've just said has sucked all the air out of the room? Maybe it's not because you're preaching truth, man. Maybe it's just because you're the only asshole in the room who doesn't grasp social convention, and so keeps steering things back to whatever point you've decided to make today. I mean, it's probably OK; most of us have learned the subtle art of navigating That One Right Wing Nutter Who Just Won't Shut The Fuck Up But He's Still Invited To Family Outings And We Have To Deal With It. But it would be nice to know that he knows, you dig?

up
Voting closed 0

Get lost.

Want to debate? Go for it. I suggest starting by responding to my destruction of your comment about the 2 identical rifles.

Want to attack my character? It only makes you look like a tool.

up
Voting closed 0

.I get it, you see everything through the lens of your guns, you hate me and everything I stand for and you feel like that classic XKCD cartoon. That's fine, we're mostly adults here, but if you're unable to express yourself in a civil manner (like other people in this thread who disagree with what I wrote), I'm afraid I'll have to show you the door.

up
Voting closed 0

I was personally attacked for no particular reason and responded. I take it you deliberately plan on ignoring that because you agree with him Dont like me? Ban me.

Beyond being personally attacked please point out where I have ever responded in such a manner to someone because I disagreed with them as the above poster did to me.

Or is it you consider the above post attacking my character civil? And apparently you think comparing me to your phunny cartoon civil?

You attacked the character of every person at the rally today, and you have a problem with my civility? Am I challenging your narrative?

As another person noted you never attack any other protesters character, why now? The AG has declared tens of thousands of people felons subject to prosecution at her will, why do you think we would not be pissed? At any point the AG could send men with guns to my home to arrest me for firearms that were perfect legal a month ago.

Dude. Pot meet kettle.

up
Voting closed 0

And it isn't the first time.

Don't like the coverage? GO AWAY.

Start your own news site with what you believe is "objective" coverage. Go ahead - nobody will stop you.

up
Voting closed 0

And when adam demeaned the voice of the crowd because of its racial make up? What is that exactly?

Dont like talking to me? Dont.

up
Voting closed 0

Nowhere did I say it wasn't. People did start chanting "lock her up!" and were carrying signs that called for Healey to be thrown in prison and showed her with a Hitler mustache. How in the world did you miss those? Unfortunately, the photo I took of the guy with a sign reading BENITO HEALEYALINI just didn't come out well, so I didn't post it (not did I post copies of the III percenter signs or the anti-UN flag since, hey, every movement has its fringe protesters).

up
Voting closed 0

When you are among hundreds of thousands of others simply waiting on the AG to send men with guns to the home of your family to arrest you for an item you lawfully possessed last month you will understand the immense anger in the crowd today and among gun owners here in MA. Selling the guns is irrelvant, guns are registered here in MA, if you bought a semi auto gun in the past 20 years per the AG you are a felon. She will not prosecute you TODAY, but tomorrow? Who knows there may be new political points to score.

Where there some posters not the absolutely pinnacle of logic? Nope. But there are in every protest. Why is it you highlight this protest as a crowd of podunk red neck racists because of that? And demean its value because of your perceived lack of diversity?

up
Voting closed 0

Besides being a strawman argument it is hysterical - both ha ha and OMG varieties. I take the unfounded, unreasonable and impossible fear of the AG sending men with guns to your home as a last ditch effort to create, to use a term from the personal computer industry, FUD. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. I'm surprised the term jackboot wasn't used. It would fit the scenario.

The AG does not have authority over the executive branch, nor Commonwealth nor local police departments. Therefore the AG can not send men with guns to your house.

Is the claim that anyone who bought a semi auto gun in the last 20 years is now a criminal an attempt to manipulate others in to a fearful and irrational state? Ignore the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and instead emphasize fear, more fear and lots more fear.

up
Voting closed 0

"Ignore the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and instead emphasize fear"

Since when did the AG pass laws? There is no new law, only a new reinterpretation.

The AG states that the firearms are illegal but she will not prosecute, today. In her own words from the state website "The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance."

Notice the second sentence?!

If my words are fudd why is it 18 democrats signed onto a letter to the AG effectively reiterating the concerns regarding the ambiguity of the guidance.

The AG has direct access to the FLRB FA10 list that holds all transaction recordings of firearm transfers in state. She can utilize that to take action against gun owners quite readily.

See attached for the letter to the AG from parts of the house and senate, 58 members I beleive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B31OP7322RQXeEIwMW44S1duZTBpMGkxczFSU2t...

up
Voting closed 0

The AG has also stated that firearms that share the same 'operating sytem' are banned. The only operating system description was shown in the poster of 2 rifles where it is described as direct impingement comparing a MA complaint one with a non compliant rifle.

If she plans to describe the operating system as direct impingement, op rod, blowback, etc she is explicitly stating all semi auto firearms are banned. Of course the AG has NOT DESCRIBED WHAT THE OPERATING SYSTEM IS. We live in a state of ambiguity with a very real threat of prosecution.

The AG has also promised SHE will not press charges. She holds no authority over DAs in the state to pass on that dictate.

up
Voting closed 0

If the AG wished to stop the spread of fear her dictate should have been much more clear. The fear is deliberate on the part of the AG.

up
Voting closed 0

Pages