PDA

View Full Version : Social Issues



road kill
01-11-2013, 07:22 AM
Over recent months we have been admonished by the disciples of Dr Paul that the Republicans will/did lose the election due to their stance on social issue.
Birth control, gay marriage etc.

Well, the "incremental secular progressive" party has chosen to make a stand on the 2nd amendment.
"No tragedy goes to waste"

All you true Democrats that bought into this groups ideology, can you continue to support this?

How do all the experts see this working out????
Do you see any backlash at the mid terms?

Or is this Bushs' fault???

I am guessing there are more Democrats that are shooting sports enthusiasts than the progressives that now run the party anticipate.



Just askin'.............

huntinman
01-11-2013, 08:23 AM
Over recent months we have been admonished by the disciples of Dr Paul that the Republicans will/did lose the election due to their stance on social issue.
Birth control, gay marriage etc.

Well, the "incremental secular progressive" party has chosen to make a stand on the 2nd amendment.
"No tragedy goes to waste"

All you true Democrats that bought into this groups ideology, can you continue to support this?

How do all the experts see this working out????
Do you see any backlash at the mid terms?

Or is this Bushs' fault???

I am guessing there are more Democrats that are shooting sports enthusiasts than the progressives that now run the party anticipate.



Just askin'.............

Most of them will march blindly into the gas chamber...

cotts135
01-11-2013, 08:43 AM
I don't quite see at as a stand of the 2nd amendment which leads to a binary choice of guns or no guns, It is common sense gun control. Supreme court Justice Scalia has already suggested that assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendmend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12

A Poll in Virginia has shown that people overwhelmingly favor background checks (92%).It seems that most NRA members feel the same way. Other polls show similiar results. Stubbornly the NRA refuses to change their own position on this. If the Republicans decide to follow the NRA, the backlash will be against them I am afraid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/quinnipiac-poll-finds-support-for-gun-buyer-background-checks-armed-police-on-school-campuses/2013/01/10/d86b8144-5b16-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html

road kill
01-11-2013, 08:47 AM
i don't quite see at as a stand of the 2nd amendment which leads to a binary choice of guns or no guns, it is common sense gun control. Supreme court justice scalia has already suggested that assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendmend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12

a poll in virginia has shown that people overwhelmingly favor background checks (92%).it seems that most nra members feel the same way. Other polls show similiar results. Stubbornly the nra refuses to change their own position on this. If the republicans decide to follow the nra, the backlash will be against them i am afraid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/quinnipiac-poll-finds-support-for-gun-buyer-background-checks-armed-police-on-school-campuses/2013/01/10/d86b8144-5b16-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html
wow!!!!!!!

BonMallari
01-11-2013, 09:38 AM
I don't quite see at as a stand of the 2nd amendment which leads to a binary choice of guns or no guns, It is common sense gun control. Supreme court Justice Scalia has already suggested that assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendmend.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12

A Poll in Virginia has shown that people overwhelmingly favor background checks (92%).It seems that most NRA members feel the same way. Other polls show similiar results. Stubbornly the NRA refuses to change their own position on this. If the Republicans decide to follow the NRA, the backlash will be against them I am afraid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/quinnipiac-poll-finds-support-for-gun-buyer-background-checks-armed-police-on-school-campuses/2013/01/10/d86b8144-5b16-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html

background checks are already standard practice, it's called the Brady act, you cant buy or transfer a gun without it, its nothing new,don't know that anyone is disputing that,and even though the anti gunners will tell you differently, you have to go thru them at gun shows

huntinman
01-11-2013, 09:46 AM
thats if you buy from dealer... now they want to force you to get background checks if I... Bill Davis sell a gun to you... Bon Mallari... at a gun show... but you know what comes next.

zeus3925
01-11-2013, 09:47 AM
The gun control issue isn't a liberal/conservative or a Democrat/Republican issue. The fault line is urban/rural. The extremists on both sides of the issue are making matters worse. It is rapidly devolving into a national screaming match which is exactly what we don't need at this point. We have a serious problem with random gun violence. We had 13 mass shootings in 2012. What we need for all of us to start listening to each other and arriving at a solution to this dilemma.

Goose
01-11-2013, 10:05 AM
While I'm not a liberal, I think I can answer this question. Most certainly liberals will support the destruction of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Guaranteed.

Liberalism is a mental attitude disease that manifests itself in many different ways. Hatred, guilt, vindictiveness, implacability, bitterness and jealousy to name just a few. Once the disease takes hold it's almost impossible to cure, and the disease loves the company of others. There's no way that anyone with this awful, mental attitude sickness could ever stand up against tyranny and the destruction of our Constitution.

So while Senator Feinstein lifts her skirt, squats and urinates on the Constitution, liberals cheer her and support her. And when Dear Leader attempts an end around the Constitution with an Executive Order, the diseased ones back him 100%.

Both Hitler and Stalin were big advocates of gun control. I've often wondered if given the chance, would a liberal volunteer to go back in time to Germany circa the 1930's with a truck load of fully operational Glocks, and hand out these 'guns' to all the Jews who were living in Germany at the time. Sadly, I think I know the answer.

We live in Cuba now.

zeus3925
01-11-2013, 10:32 AM
Goose, you just made an example to prove my point.

huntinman
01-11-2013, 10:43 AM
Gooser, you just made an example to prove my point.

That's not Gooser... That's Goose.

HPL
01-11-2013, 10:47 AM
I read the poll referenced in the Huffington Post article. There are a number of things in it that give me pause. I would guess that most folks didn't really think about the ramifications of the actions that many of the questions alluded to.

Question 14 addresses keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and others. At first glance, I am for keeping guns away from crazies, but then the question is how crazy? Does visiting a mental health professional for depression for instance, put you on the list, what about an eating disorder, etc.? Who are the "others" they mention?

Question 16 requires that no one possess a firearm within 1000' of many federal officials!!! Seems like too much of an opportunity for law enforcement abuse to me and just clutters up the code books. What do you do when one comes to spend the day quail hunting at your hunting camp, drives down your street, or gives a speech a couple of blocks over from where you are with your legal firearm?

Question 17 concerns enforcement of ALL existing gun laws. Really hard to voice an opinion without knowing exactly what those laws are and which ones aren't being enforced. If they are going to ask that question, i think that there needs to be a lot more information before one can give a reasonable answer.

Question 18 suggests that anyone ARRESTED for (not charged with or convicted of) a drug offense should lose their right to own a gun. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons, but to suggest that being caught with a joint in your pocket (by the way, I have never used any drug not prescribed by my doctor and don't drink either) should be cause for the loss of your rights is just ludicrous and what would prevent the police from just arresting you without cause to harass you? (No offense to all the great officers in the country). The part about failing a "federally administered drug test" really makes my skin crawl. (under what conditions would you be tested?)

#19 Suggests that anyone that attempts to buy a firearm and fails the background test should be reported to law enforcement.

#23 sounds pretty good (deals with folks on the terrorist watch list), but there needs to be some appeal as there are apparently thousands and thousands of folks on that list that probably shouldn't be.

#24 Would prevent the person who was urinating in the park and got charged with flashing (a misdemeanor sex crime) from owning a fire arm. Why would anyone convicted of a NON-violent MISDEMEANOR offense lose their constitutional rights?

#28 suggests that we need a national registry (makes it easier when they really want to come get them and if FOIA requests would allow access to the registry, well, what a can of worms that would be)

#31 addresses background checks for ammunition purchases. Think of the paperwork and the number of people needed to handle it at all levels. What a nightmare.

All of these ideas were favored by more than 50% of the respondents.

The real problem with making big decisions based on opinion polls in general is that polls are easily manipulated, overly simplistic, and often require fairly quick answers without any real consideration of what the potential outcomes of the various answers might actually be.
These polls allow folks to say "this is what the people think" without giving the respondents the information (or finding out if the people actually have the information) needed to form a meaningful opinion.

zeus3925
01-11-2013, 11:20 AM
That's not Gooser... That's Goose.

Opps! Fixed it.

zeus3925
01-11-2013, 11:24 AM
I read the poll referenced in the Huffington Post article. There are a number of things in it that give me pause. I would guess that most folks didn't really think about the ramifications of the actions that many of the questions alluded to.

Question 14 addresses keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and others. At first glance, I am for keeping guns away from crazies, but then the question is how crazy? Does visiting a mental health professional for depression for instance, put you on the list, what about an eating disorder, etc.? Who are the "others" they mention?

Question 16 requires that no one possess a firearm within 1000' of many federal officials!!! Seems like too much of an opportunity for law enforcement abuse to me and just clutters up the code books. What do you do when one comes to spend the day quail hunting at your hunting camp, drives down your street, or gives a speech a couple of blocks over from where you are with your legal firearm?

Question 17 concerns enforcement of ALL existing gun laws. Really hard to voice an opinion without knowing exactly what those laws are and which ones aren't being enforced. If they are going to ask that question, i think that there needs to be a lot more information before one can give a reasonable answer.

Question 18 suggests that anyone ARRESTED for (not charged with or convicted of) a drug offense should lose their right to own a gun. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons, but to suggest that being caught with a joint in your pocket (by the way, I have never used any drug not prescribed by my doctor and don't drink either) should be cause for the loss of your rights is just ludicrous and what would prevent the police from just arresting you without cause to harass you? (No offense to all the great officers in the country). The part about failing a "federally administered drug test" really makes my skin crawl. (under what conditions would you be tested?)

#19 Suggests that anyone that attempts to buy a firearm and fails the background test should be reported to law enforcement.

#23 sounds pretty good (deals with folks on the terrorist watch list), but there needs to be some appeal as there are apparently thousands and thousands of folks on that list that probably shouldn't be.

#24 Would prevent the person who was urinating in the park and got charged with flashing (a misdemeanor sex crime) from owning a fire arm. Why would anyone convicted of a NON-violent MISDEMEANOR offense lose their constitutional rights?

#28 suggests that we need a national registry (makes it easier when they really want to come get them and if FOIA requests would allow access to the registry, well, what a can of worms that would be)

#31 addresses background checks for ammunition purchases. Think of the paperwork and the number of people needed to handle it at all levels. What a nightmare.

All of these ideas were favored by more than 50% of the respondents.

The real problem with making big decisions based on opinion polls in general is that polls are easily manipulated, overly simplistic, and often require fairly quick answers without any real consideration of what the potential outcomes of the various answers might actually be.
These polls allow folks to say "this is what the people think" without giving the respondents the information (or finding out if the people actually have the information) needed to form a meaningful opinion.
You make some very good points, HPL.

Franco
01-11-2013, 11:35 AM
For the record, the Libertarian Party is the ONLY political party that opposes more gun laws! Unlike many Repubs and Dems pushing for more gun laws, the LP is th only one standing up for your rights.

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/halt-the-massacre-of-innocent-children-by-ending-prohibition-on-self-defense-in

zeus3925
01-11-2013, 11:46 AM
Going back to Goose's point, some people there is no reasoning with. What good is making Feinstein an issue? You and I are not going to change her stance. Move on and look for support for more agreeable sources. Going after Feinstein only creates a high visibility martyr for people of like minds to coalesce around. The one thing about getting down in the mud and wrestling with someone as intractable as Feinstein is you end up where nobody can see through the mud to discern the difference. I don't think you want to end up looking like Feinstein unless you are going to a masquerade ball on Halloween.:)

As for the rant on liberals, I have heard the same tirade from the other side against conservatives. It gets us no where and it really precludes any meaningful discussion on the issues before the country. Liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, moderate are all legitimate points of view. Those lines of thought have been the strength of this democracy. To slam a door on any particular viewpoint does a disservice to us all.

Julie R.
01-11-2013, 12:34 PM
A Poll in Virginia has shown that people overwhelmingly favor background checks (92%).It seems that most NRA members feel the same way. Other polls show similiar results. Stubbornly the NRA refuses to change their own position on this. If the Republicans decide to follow the NRA, the backlash will be against them I am afraid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/quinnipiac-poll-finds-support-for-gun-buyer-background-checks-armed-police-on-school-campuses/2013/01/10/d86b8144-5b16-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html

As a Virginia resident (and graduate of a fairly well-known university, the University of Virginia) I confess I've never heard of Quinnipiac University. That's the first red flag for this poll's validity. Second is that my state is inevitably included as home to gun-toting bible thumping religious right extremists so of course it would make an ideal location for a poll promoting anti gun laws. In truth, I'd be willing to bet money the majority of those polled were come-heres, not from heres. We have a lot of those, mostly Obama sheep.

cotts135
01-11-2013, 12:35 PM
I read the poll referenced in the Huffington Post article. There are a number of things in it that give me pause. I would guess that most folks didn't really think about the ramifications of the actions that many of the questions alluded to.

Question 14 addresses keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and others. At first glance, I am for keeping guns away from crazies, but then the question is how crazy? Does visiting a mental health professional for depression for instance, put you on the list, what about an eating disorder, etc.? Who are the "others" they mention?

Question 16 requires that no one possess a firearm within 1000' of many federal officials!!! Seems like too much of an opportunity for law enforcement abuse to me and just clutters up the code books. What do you do when one comes to spend the day quail hunting at your hunting camp, drives down your street, or gives a speech a couple of blocks over from where you are with your legal firearm?

Question 17 concerns enforcement of ALL existing gun laws. Really hard to voice an opinion without knowing exactly what those laws are and which ones aren't being enforced. If they are going to ask that question, i think that there needs to be a lot more information before one can give a reasonable answer.

Question 18 suggests that anyone ARRESTED for (not charged with or convicted of) a drug offense should lose their right to own a gun. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons, but to suggest that being caught with a joint in your pocket (by the way, I have never used any drug not prescribed by my doctor and don't drink either) should be cause for the loss of your rights is just ludicrous and what would prevent the police from just arresting you without cause to harass you? (No offense to all the great officers in the country). The part about failing a "federally administered drug test" really makes my skin crawl. (under what conditions would you be tested?)

#19 Suggests that anyone that attempts to buy a firearm and fails the background test should be reported to law enforcement.

#23 sounds pretty good (deals with folks on the terrorist watch list), but there needs to be some appeal as there are apparently thousands and thousands of folks on that list that probably shouldn't be.

#24 Would prevent the person who was urinating in the park and got charged with flashing (a misdemeanor sex crime) from owning a fire arm. Why would anyone convicted of a NON-violent MISDEMEANOR offense lose their constitutional rights?

#28 suggests that we need a national registry (makes it easier when they really want to come get them and if FOIA requests would allow access to the registry, well, what a can of worms that would be)

#31 addresses background checks for ammunition purchases. Think of the paperwork and the number of people needed to handle it at all levels. What a nightmare.

All of these ideas were favored by more than 50% of the respondents.

The real problem with making big decisions based on opinion polls in general is that polls are easily manipulated, overly simplistic, and often require fairly quick answers without any real consideration of what the potential outcomes of the various answers might actually be.
These polls allow folks to say "this is what the people think" without giving the respondents the information (or finding out if the people actually have the information) needed to form a meaningful opinion.

Great points you make, shows me even more the importance of having a educated and reasonable discussion amongst everyone involved so we can come to some sort of solution.

caryalsobrook
01-11-2013, 12:49 PM
Great points you make, shows me even more the importance of having a educated and reasonable discussion amongst everyone involved so we can come to some sort of solution.

First, I would suggest that you get rid of "solutions" THAT HAVE NOT WORKED! then try to find a solution that MIGHT WORK.

paul young
01-11-2013, 12:51 PM
As a Virginia resident (and graduate of a fairly well-known university, the University of Virginia) I confess I've never heard of Quinnipiac University. That's the first red flag for this poll's validity. Second is that my state is inevitably included as home to gun-toting bible thumping religious right extremists so of course it would make an ideal location for a poll promoting anti gun laws. In truth, I'd be willing to bet money the majority of those polled were come-heres, not from heres. We have a lot of those, mostly Obama sheep.



Quinnipiac University is in Hamden, Ct. It's not very far from Sandy Hook, Ct.-Paul

HPL
01-11-2013, 12:58 PM
Great points you make, shows me even more the importance of having a educated and reasonable discussion amongst everyone involved so we can come to some sort of solution.

Thanks.

I will say again that I think that most people are looking for a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist (statistically speaking). Mass shootings are horrific, but unbelievably rare. A huge proportion of the rest of "gun violence" is perpetuated by a very identifiable subset of our society, but selectively enforcing restrictions against that subset would be instantly seen as discriminatory, thus, it is suggested that we should all be punished. Really a problem.

Julie R.
01-11-2013, 01:16 PM
Quinnipiac University is in Hamden, Ct. It's not very far from Sandy Hook, Ct.-Paul

Wonder why some obscure Conn. college would pick Virginia residents to poll about gun rights? Oh yeah, it's the evil state that supplies NY's and all of the rest of New England's criminals with guns because its gun-toting, bible-thumping residents abhor gun control and its gun shops sells them to any criminal that wants to shoot up a school ((((eye roll)))).

Not picking on you, Paul and thank you for educating me on Quinnipiniac U, since I'd never heard of it and thought maybe it was among the plethora of internet schools that have sprung up recently. It does get tiresome hearing sanctimonious NE politicians, esp. NYC Mayor Bloomberg, blaming VA for supplying their criminals with guns. As if here in Virginia we have a cottage industry breeding and raising guns to kill people....

MooseGooser
01-11-2013, 01:41 PM
Going back to Goose's point, some people there is no reasoning with. What good is making Feinstein an issue? You and I are not going to change her stance. Move on and look for support for more agreeable sources. Going after Feinstein only creates a high visibility martyr for people of like minds to coalesce around. The one thing about getting down in the mud and wrestling with someone as intractable as Feinstein is you end up where nobody can see through the mud to discern the difference. I don't think you want to end up looking like Feinstein unless you are going to a masquerade ball on Halloween.:)

As for the rant on liberals, I have heard the same tirade from the other side against conservatives. It gets us no where and it really precludes any meaningful discussion on the issues before the country. Liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, moderate are all legitimate points of view. Those lines of thought have been the strength of this democracy. To slam a door on any particular viewpoint does a disservice to us all.

Heres Goosers Thoughts..


The Constitution, nor the oath of office,, require an allegience to a politicle party..

But,,

There IS a such a thing called majority tyranny.


Gooser

road kill
01-11-2013, 06:13 PM
"Meaningful discusion??"
Are you freakin' kidding me??
Where was the meaningful discussion on;
Obama Care
Stimulus II
UAW bailout
Forced religious institutional birth control
Green company hand outs (Fiskars & Solyndra)
Debt ceiling (which is coming again, soon)
Tax increases


"It's not a Democrat / Republican thing??"

That's exactly what it is.
You leftys followed the pied piper, now deal with it.
No Republicans are pushing for gun control, that's coming from the Whitehouse!!!!

He wants to make gun control an issue?
Great, do it, and you leftys will lose the Senate at the mid terms.
Let's see, who all is up??
LA, UT, SD, and several more.

Obama used the useful idiots to get in and now (like he told the russian dude) he can do "lot's more!!!"

Pretend like you didn't see this comming all you want.
Blame who ever you want bot Obama is "fundamentally changing America," just like he said he would.
"No one is so blind as he who refuses to see!!!"

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q31/eenkmouse2311/Obama/obama-hopenosis.gif

Guns are not the problem ladies and gentleman, liberalism is!!!!

huntinman
01-11-2013, 06:41 PM
"Meaningful discusion??"
Are you freakin' kidding me??
Where was the meaningful discussion on;
Obama Care
Stimulus II
UAW bailout
Forced religious institutional birth control
Green company hand outs (Fiskars & Solyndra)
Debt ceiling (which is coming again, soon)


"It's not a Democrat / Republican thing??"

That's exactly what it is.
You leftys followed the pied piper, now deal with it.

He wants to make gun control an issue?
Great, do it, and you leftys will lose the Senate at the mid terms.
Let's see, who all is up??
LA, UT, SD, and several more.

Obama used the useful idiots to get in and now (like he told the russian dude) he can do "lot's more!!!"

Pretend like you didn't see this comming all you want.
Blame who ever you want bot Obama is "fundamentally changing America," just like he said he would.
"No one is so blind as he who refuses to see!!!"

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q31/eenkmouse2311/Obama/obama-hopenosis.gif

Guns are not the problem ladies and gentleman, liberalism is!!!!


But, But...

mngundog
01-11-2013, 06:54 PM
But, But...
But the Republicans ran this guy...... This is not a Romney problem, but a Republican problem.

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people. -Mitt Romney


The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of features are banned:

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip,
or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--"

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'“

A “large capacity feeding device” is defined the same as in federal law, or:
“a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; ... The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.”

A “large capacity weapon” is basically any firearm, rifle or shotgun that is semi-automatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device or that is capable of accepting any detachable large capacity feeding device; or an “assault weapon.”

Ban on recently-manufactured “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” State law clearly limits possession to pre-1994 items and exempts out only law enforcement and retired law enforcement:

“No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.”

Transportation of “Large Capacity Weapons:” No person possessing a large capacity rifle or shotgun under a Class A or Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.

References: Mass General Law C.140 §§121, 131C, 131M and 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)

road kill
01-11-2013, 06:56 PM
But the Republicans ran this guy...... This is not a Romney problem, but a Republican problem.

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people. -Mitt Romney
Romney is not President, your guy is and he is "assaulting" law abiding citizens constitutional rights!!!!

Are you trying to make us believe you voted for Obama due to his pro-gun philosophy??

That is hysterical......................

mngundog
01-11-2013, 07:13 PM
Romney is not President, your guy is and he is "assaulting" law abiding citizens constitutional rights!!!!

Are you trying to make us believe you voted for Obama due to his pro-gun philosophy??

That is hysterical......................
My guy, your hysterical, I have ever never been behind Obama...ever...., you bragged up a Republican candidate that was in favor of gun control and socialized health care, you sound more like a Obama supporter than me.

starjack
01-12-2013, 07:51 AM
But the Republicans ran this guy...... This is not a Romney problem, but a Republican problem.

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people. -Mitt RomneyWho is the president??

mngundog
01-12-2013, 09:35 AM
Who is the president??
In keeping with the theme of the OP, I thought it was worth noting that both parties ran gun control freaks and that is hardly irrelevant in this discussion. I do believe it is a fair question to ask democratic voters their thoughts on gun control in the mid terms, I believe it would be a better question to ask republican voters the same question. Gun Control policy was absolutely abandoned by the Republican party in the last election, I hope they come around in the mid-terms.

BonMallari
01-12-2013, 09:47 AM
In keeping with the theme of the OP, I thought it was worth noting that both parties ran gun control freaks and that is hardly irrelevant in this discussion. I do believe it is a fair question to ask democratic voters their thoughts on gun control in the mid terms, I believe it would be a better question to ask republican voters the same question. Gun Control policy was absolutely abandoned by the Republican party in the last election, I hope they come around in the mid-terms.

it was abandoned because polling from the likely voters showed it wasnt in the Top 5 issues...they also knew that the gun control issue was going to be fought in the courts...everyone and their kid sister knew BHO was going after the guns IF he got a second term, no one imagined he would have gotten a national tragedy like Newton to further his agenda

Could you imagine the field day the media would be having IF the R's had won the WH and Newton still went down, even before a new Pres was inaugurated

BonMallari
01-12-2013, 10:16 AM
Really, with all the public shooting in recent years, no one imagined a tragedy like that? Doesn't say much for the public in general. Time for the Republicans to step up to the plate.

Yes REALLY...would gun control have stopped Newton ? the guns were purchased legally,how are you going to stop a mother who was indulging her son by exposing him to those guns, ones that in his demented mind he had no trouble accessing..What law did she break...had she not been a victim would she have been held liable for all the carnage her son caused..Gun control would not have stopped Newton, not stopped Aurora...you got people not playing with a full deck upstairs getting access to guns...heck there are people passing CCW classes that I may not believe should carry a gun, but I dont get to make that choice, when someone gets a gun how does one know what is in their heart of hearts and their intent to do harm

mngundog
01-12-2013, 10:24 AM
Yes REALLY...would gun control have stopped Newton ? the guns were purchased legally,how are you going to stop a mother who was indulging her son by exposing him to those guns, ones that in his demented mind he had no trouble accessing..What law did she break...had she not been a victim would she have been held liable for all the carnage her son caused..Gun control would not have stopped Newton, not stopped Aurora...you got people not playing with a full deck upstairs getting access to guns...heck there are people passing CCW classes that I may not believe should carry a gun, but I dont get to make that choice, when someone gets a gun how does one know what is in their heart of hearts and their intent to do harm
Bon, I am saying its time for Republicans to stop running candidates in favor of gun control.

BonMallari
01-12-2013, 10:38 AM
Bon, I am saying its time for Republicans to stop running candidates in favor of gun control...

True , but the ones that were pro gun didnt make it past the early rounds of the primaries, some of which I preferred...so whats the solution...adopt a platform first and then see who wants to back it up...I agree that Mitt was not the BEST of candidates...but he was a good man, and his pro gun stance from his Mass days did not come into play in the grand scheme of things

mngundog
01-12-2013, 10:43 AM
..

True , but the ones that were pro gun didnt make it past the early rounds of the primaries, some of which I preferred...so whats the solution...adopt a platform first and then see who wants to back it up...I agree that Mitt was not the BEST of candidates...but he was a good man, and his pro gun stance from his Mass days did not come into play in the grand scheme of things
Yes, adopt a platform and see who backs it up with words AND BY THEIR PREVIOUS ACTIONS.

BonMallari
01-12-2013, 10:57 AM
Yes, adopt a platform and see who backs it up with words AND BY THEIR PREVIOUS ACTIONS.

But we played that game already....the primary process hung every candidates misstep and past history around their necks like an anchor...Everyone was so quick to point out how candidate A-B-or C voted on issue XYZ when they were a legislator or governor or county dog catcher...and then we wonder why candidates are so reluctant to take a stance on any issue

huntinman
01-12-2013, 12:13 PM
You want to talk Gun Control? Let's talk about Chicago... they (and they whole state of IL) have some pretty tough gun control laws... Over 500 murders last year in the city of Chicago alone. That's Newtown all over about every three weeks.

luvmylabs23139
01-12-2013, 08:47 PM
As a Virginia resident (and graduate of a fairly well-known university, the University of Virginia) I confess I've never heard of Quinnipiac University. That's the first red flag for this poll's validity. Second is that my state is inevitably included as home to gun-toting bible thumping religious right extremists so of course it would make an ideal location for a poll promoting anti gun laws. In truth, I'd be willing to bet money the majority of those polled were come-heres, not from heres. We have a lot of those, mostly Obama sheep.

It a very liberal college in CT. Been known for decades as a left wing nut case.

luvmylabs23139
01-12-2013, 08:57 PM
Quinnipiac University is in Hamden, Ct. It's not very far from Sandy Hook, Ct.-Paul

And it has always been known for being very left wing nutty. It's a liberal arts college. When I was looking at colleges circa 1980 they didn't offer any real degrees.Just a bunch of waste your money liberal BS for a ton of money.

luvmylabs23139
01-12-2013, 09:02 PM
In keeping with the theme of the OP, I thought it was worth noting that both parties ran gun control freaks and that is hardly irrelevant in this discussion. I do believe it is a fair question to ask democratic voters their thoughts on gun control in the mid terms, I believe it would be a better question to ask republican voters the same question. Gun Control policy was absolutely abandoned by the Republican party in the last election, I hope they come around in the mid-terms.

Maybe but Romney was the lesser of two evils. Anything was better than Obama.

luvmylabs23139
01-12-2013, 09:21 PM
Quinnipiac University is in Hamden, Ct. It's not very far from Sandy Hook, Ct.-Paul

That would be Newtown CT. No such legal place as Sandy Hook, CT.

luvmylabs23139
01-12-2013, 09:26 PM
In keeping with the theme of the OP, I thought it was worth noting that both parties ran gun control freaks and that is hardly irrelevant in this discussion. I do believe it is a fair question to ask democratic voters their thoughts on gun control in the mid terms, I believe it would be a better question to ask republican voters the same question. Gun Control policy was absolutely abandoned by the Republican party in the last election, I hope they come around in the mid-terms.
HOw about we just stick to the constitution.
"shall not be infringed" OBUMMA better read that!!!

mngundog
01-12-2013, 11:17 PM
Maybe but Romney was the lesser of two evils. Anything was better than Obama.
This is why I voted for him.

Gerry Clinchy
01-14-2013, 01:07 AM
Interesting stats reported on Bill Cunningham on radio tonight:
In 2011 ... total killings in 2011 ... 11,000 (this would also include suicides & accidents)
6000 related to handguns
503 involved hammers
323 involved rifles

The vast majority of killings involved criminal activities like drug dealing or gang violence.

With so many millions (I've heard 2.8 million mentioned for handguns) in the hands of the citizenry, it certainly would appear that the vast majority of gunowners are careful with them & law abiding.

Biden says "We must DO something," about those rifles that cause 323 killings a year ... guess the 500 in Chicago don't bother him as much, or the 6000 caused by handguns (not that I think additional handgun laws are going to help either).

cripes
01-14-2013, 07:17 AM
Her is something positive to do. http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction