Tommorow all poilitical eyes will be on the US Senate race in Masschusetts where State Attorney General Martha Coakley and State Senator Scott Brown are battling for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat.
Today, the anniversary of Martin Luther King's birthday, his son MLK, III joined Boston based gun violence prevention and community activists in a get out the vote effort and message that; a vote for Scott Brown will be a vote against many of the issues that his father fought so hard for when he was alive.
Although Scott Brown likes to pretend he's a moderate, his voting record clearly shows his true colors. On Massachusetts common sense gun regulations and innovative law enforcement initiatives, which have been a model for the nation and have resulted in dramatic reductions in gun violence, Brown has been a leading opponent. He has an A Rating from the NRA and an A+ Rating from Gun Owner's Action League (GOAL), the NRA's Massachusetts' affiliate.
As a State Representative in 2002, Brown voted on Legislation (HB 5102) that would restore handgun permits for convicted violent criminals and he has continually opposed the MA statewide ban on military style assault weapons. Further, like the NRA, Brown opposes mandatory criminal background checks for all gun sales, even for convicted felons and people on suspected terrorist watch lists.
Martha Coakley may not be the warmest or most passionate candidiate but as a public official she's been consistant in her support for law enforcement, public safety and Massachusetts leadership on gun laws and first in the nation consumer protection standards for firearms. Coakley has helped make Massachusetts the State with the second lowest fiream fatality rate in the Country, behind only Hawaii. Coakley's positions and sensibilities are truly moderate and much more in line with the late Senator Kennedy's and Massachusetts voters.
Conversely Scott Brown has continually tried to mislead voters about his voting record and right wing agenda. In many ways Scott Brown is Sarah Palin in a suit. He looks attractive to many but his positions are completely out of step with mainsteam voters in Massachusetts and across the Country.
A vote for Scott Brown will be a vote for the NRA and the right wing of the Republican Party. Anyone in Massachusetts concerned about gun violence, public safety and support for law enforcement should vote against Scott Brown in tomorrow's Special Election.
Kinda looks like the people of "Massachusettes" disagree.
We win, you lose now let's get to work.
I have always wondered what the extent of common sense gun control is, since they nowhere state what their ultimate goal is, just that every restrictive gun control proposal yet proposed seems, in their mind to be "common sense". I have reviewed Brady and VPC for hints and I think this is what it entails...
Of course, licensing and registration is a must for all firearms.
Secondly, it appears that in their view, firearms are appropriate for hunting and sporting purposes only. They specifically omit self defense as a legitimate usage. This leads to the conclusion that a handgun ban is "common sense" for them and explains their support of DC in the Heller case.
There is also indications that, even for these purposes, a "need" must be established which indicates that the person is actually a hunter or sportsman in "need" of firearms. Thus, they seem to suggest that a person should be a member of a hunt club or gun club to even qualify for ownership.
More....
Semi automatic appears to be an evil word, thus I presume that all semi-auto weapons will also be verbotten.
CCW of course is out of the question except perhaps for very limited situations, such as private security guards and only while they are actually on the job.
Safe storage issues and complaints about guns in the home lead me back to their issue about being a member of a gun club.... Obviously, and according to them a gun in the home is no good whatsoever, thus I believe a requirement that all privately owned firearms must be stored at the gun club when not actually in use for hunting or sporting purposes is another of their common sense laws.
The IANSA proposal about 100 meter lethality may be on their super secret wish list also, but I doubt if they would ever admit same...
Did I miss any?.
As a member of IANSA, I think the ultimate goal of the BC can be determined by the president of that org., Rebecca Peters:
"I think Americans who hunt -- and who prove that they can hunt -- should have single shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they"re hunting
civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example. "
We can also look at what they promoted in the (failed) Brazilian referendum from last year:
Obigatory National Firearms database
universal registration w/ renewals at least every three years
Demonstrated 'need' for a firearms.
Psychological tests.
'Competency' tests.
Ammo Serialization
Ammo limitations to 50 rnds/yr.
Ban on toy guns
Gun 'Buybacks'
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/09/theyre-not-after-your-guns-really.html
Or maybe Coakley's support of the law doesn't apply to her campaign infringing trademarks and copyrights like they did w/ the UPS in other mailings.
This of course is all ancillary to the fact that a seat held by Kennedy for decades is now tied in the polls.
What does that say about the support for the DNC right now?
http://www.experienceproject.com/partner_ups/captions/i1rd67vxyf.jpg
Don't buy into the sugar of Brown's Pop culture and pay the price for nothing.
It’s a sugar high sure to have come crushing down
with easy access assault weapons in the hands of kids in town
175 mentality is the price our society pays with assault weapons on our street.
Scott Brown says he “opposes” but when voting pulls the lever that sheds blood at our feet.
His ideals parallel Senate Bill -SB175 (ironically Scott Browns Initials)
Just say “No” to big insurance. Say “No” to the denial of health insurance loopholes of “pre-existing” conditions
http://www.massmpc.com/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=150036
Aren't we generally expected to believe that police officers support whichever candidate is most supportive of restrictive gun laws? By the way, I hear that since Coakley's husband is a former Cambridge police officer, that endorsement could be said to come from Coakley's husband's union. That's gotta hurt, eh?
As for HB 5102--your take on it seems to depart from reality, in that HB 5102 was designed to restore gun rights to those convicted of NON-violent crimes--and the restoration of that Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual would take SEVEN years.
The Cambridge Patrol Officers Association isn't a union.
BTW, Coakley seems to have swept the endorsements of police unions in MA: the National Association of Police Organizations, the Massachusetts Police Association, the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, the Newton Police Superior Officers Association, the Littleton Police Association, the New Bedford Police Union, and the Ashland Police Association.
Whenever Jade's talking points are put forward it's always a good idea to check it.
Oh really? The State Police Association of Massachusetts, the Commissioned Officers Association of the Massachusetts State Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the New England Police Benevolent Association, Local 911, New England Police Benevolent Association, Local 504, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and even Coakley's husband’s union, the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers all endorsed Brown.
BTW the National Association of Police Organizations is not a union; The Massachusetts Police Association is also not a union.