Taking the Guns...Again!

1. 96

   wildernessposted 7 years ago

   It seems that Massachusetts, in 1998, banned "assault weapons".  According to state law, that term refers not only to a long list of specific guns, but any semi-automatic rifle with any 2 of the following:
   
   (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;
   
   Manufacturers and sellers responding by providing only guns without that deadly folding stock or pistol grip.  Or any of them; all guns were made to be legal for sale.
   
   But now Mass. AG Maura Healey has issued a directive banning guns that are "similar in function" but have been slightly modified to meet state requirements, such as by replacing those deadly folding stocks with fixed models or removing flash suppressors.  They are "copycats" and must not be found in Massachusetts.  Manufacturers followed the law and the result is that perfectly legal guns are now banned in Massachusetts.  They are being sued, of course, and over both the 1998 law and the directive.
   
   Given that the "similar function" of ALL guns is to propel a bullet from the barrel at high velocity, can anyone honestly doubt that the goal is to ban ALL guns?  Here we have completely legal guns being banned because they all shoot bullets!
   
   http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massa … SKBN15821V
   http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/0 … ticle:stub
   http://www.goal.org/masslawpages/awfacts.html

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Gun-control advocates, who highlight the guns' use in mass shootings at places such as schools and nightclubs, have responded by focusing their efforts on promoting new restrictions at the state level.
      
      Liberal-leaning Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun regulations in the country."
      
      RIGHT, wilderness?
      
      "We are drawing a line in the sand where Massachusetts' gun control agenda tramples the fundamental individual right to defend oneself and family in the home," James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League, said in a statement."
      
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massa … SKBN15821V
      
      We protect ourselves from bad guys, hunt for game and shoot for sport on the one hand ...
      and on the other, as long as we give our kids pharmaceuticals, let them watch violent movies and play violent video games, we do need gun control measures.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Wonder how they will control deer population when no one can hunt anymore?  Poison them?

         replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   The gun debate directly truly reflects the concern  of state legislative bodies everywhere .Everything has ALREADY been said about the low impact of legislating lawless , careless and  unchanging human -social-cultural behavior . It shows the great humanitarian concern of legislative bodies everywhere
   DOESN"T  IT ?
   Why not constantly re-introduce meaningless legislation over and over again to a  naïve public ?
   Because it works , POLITICAL DIVICIVNESS  always works with the public !
   
   You go America ! Keep voting for the same people!
   
   .

   replyreport
3. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Here in my neighborhood, nothing. Coyote and deer population is growing bigger and bigger. We need guns or bows/arrows, but who owns or is qualified to use either weapon?
   No one near-by in my residential area.
   Now, if terrorists invade and try to take over and stuff, I'll really be in trouble, living here!
   Unless the kids around town who have been playing violent video games start to buy and sell guns to each other and hide them from their parents under their beds, maybe they can help. Wouldn't that make a great Hollywood Movie?
   Title
   Kids, Guns, Cribs, Hoods, Coyote, Deer, Bad Guys, Terrorists and Invading Aliens.
   … with a great music score.
   
   Can kids get ahold of guns?
   
   https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/wh … b725528abb

   replyreport
4. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   I read some about Mass. AG Maura Healey and am not impressed with her competence or with her intelligence, as are many of the people of Mass not impressed.   Time for them to vote her Marxist self-righteous butt out in my opinion.
   
   I didn't want to start a new thread, and didn't know where else to talk about this.  It was just brought to my attention about Obama's last minute ammo ban rule/regulation. 
   ZeroHedge has a good article about it. 
   *   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-2 … eft-office
   
   12 hours before President Trump was sworn into office.
   
   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, an Obama appointee, ordered a new ammunition ban for certain federal lands on Thursday–his last full day in office.
   
   The ban, which took effect immediately, eliminates the use of lead-based ammunition on federal lands like national parks and wildlife refuges, as well as any other land administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.The ban is expected to have a major impact on much of the hunting that takes place on federal lands across the United States as lead-based ammunition is widely legal and used throughout the country.
   
   The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen, and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this and, instead, create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition.”
   
   The timing is suspicious, and the new rule and regulation was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen, and conservationists. This should be rescinded as soon as possible. 
   
   The Obama administration caused a lot of damage, that the Trump Administration has its work cut out for them to reverse.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The timing is certainly suspect, but I'm not at all sure that the ban is.  I know that some rivers are seeing lead contamination from fishing and the lead sinkers used.  I know that using lead shot is of at least some concern in bird hunting, both from the shot spread across the landscape and from what remains in the bird.
      
      So I'd have to say I would need to look into this - what were the reasons, how long has it been talked about, what were the conclusions and what was the information giving rise to those conclusions.  I'd also question the claim that no conservationists were consulted and why sportsmen should have been consulted at all.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Good points!  Maybe there is more than 'unchecked politics' as the article suggests.  However, I think a policy like this should be created based on sound scientific evidence regarding lead ammunition.  Maybe there is that evidence and I haven't seen it yet.
         
         The big manufacturers of non lead ammunition will be making a killing. They lobbied well.  Got stocks?

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That's kind of the point.  Demonizing Don Ashe without having the faintest idea of why he did what he did is no different than demonizing the president without having the faintest idea of why HE did what he did.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               You are correct there. Your input is appreciated.  I just read that one article so far, but will follow this to see what developes in the days ahead as the big boys deal with it.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   
                  
                  And yes, this is something I'd like to follow as well.  As the population grows the amount of lead being thrown about the environment (think leaded gas as as an example) is enormous and may very well need to be addressed.  Or it could be nothing but yet another end run around the 2nd amendment; it has become all too popular a tactic to use irrelevant "reasons" to side step laws and facts in a wide variety of issues from abortion to gun control to pipelines.

                  replyreport
5. 54

   Charity Sanzoneposted 7 years ago

   I don't think they should ytake our guns away only because we need to protect ourselves from criminals who get their guns illegally ... If they take our guns away and criminals and terrorist get theirs illegally then we are in big trouble!!!

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You are not supposed to protect yourself.  You are supposed to call the cops and hope they get there before you bleed to death.

      replyreport