Citizens for Safety is pushing a video, purportedly featuring gun owners, to push Deval Patrick’s gun control agenda:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb0Tk-xEQ_Q[/youtube]
You can read more about these individuals here. We’re made to think they are just ordinary gun owning folk. Except the Chelan Brown was a Democratic candidate for state-rep at one point, one who was apparently known for plagiarizing portions of her web site from other candidates. She was also President of AWAKE, Inc, and has testified in favor of gun control. Jim Mathes is also a democratic activist who considered running for Mayor of New Bedford at one point.
In short, these aren’t ordinary gun owners. They are part of the Democratic political establishment in Massachusetts. They can’t win without deception.
UPDATE: Also notice the lack of eye and ear protection when she’s shooting. Did they have anyone involved in this venture who was actually a real shooter?
Notice the complete lack of eye or hearing protection. Citizens for Safety, indeed.
Does that video seriously say that restricting purchases to one gun a month is “NOT gun control” ?
haha. By this logic, Zero Guns per Month will be even more effective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.
Those are good points. I was also noticing how atrociously “movie like” the firing grip was (not to mention the terrible shooting). Pushing the gun much? I love your blog. I read it even though I’m in Texas. This stuff will eventually affet us all.
Is that supposed to be a stop of something in the backround when the text appears?
And as usual ratings and comments are disabled. I guess they just put it on and left it because the channel comments are rather seething with sentiment against the ad.
The article also states that Mathes has ‘closely aligned’ himself w/ the current mayor Scott Lang and was appointed by Lang as the head of the cities chamber of commerce .
Lang is a member of MAIG.
Love the guy shooting the rifle while a pair of ear-muffs sits on the bench. Not the sort of people I want next to me at the range and not the sort of people we need in elective office.
I knew there was SOMTHING fishy about then when this video fist surfaced here.
Of course all their positive claims are false, as are their stipulations that this isn’t “Gun Control”.
Also you’ll note that they screen comments on the video, and don’t allow ratings to make this appear popular.
LIARS!
Sort of amusing the very first caption they flash on the screen (0:25) says, “Nearly all shooting homicides involve illegally obtained guns.” Isn’t that the sort of point /we/ make?
I noticed during this video how it featured an AK-47 and a .50 BMG Barrett rifle, two particular types of firearms that the anti-gunner types really have been demonizing in recent years. It’s as if whoever produced this video decided to go all out trying to convince us that it’s from a “pro-gun” perspective by featuring the “scariest” looking guns that people are shooting these days.
I never thought they were average gun owners. When I posted about this I asked the question, what percentage of gun owners do you think support gun control.
I’ve never polled them, but I’d say a large number of them likely do. Just because you own a gun doesn’t mean you’ve really given any thought to the Second Amendment, and what it should mean. A lot of gun owners will support any restriction they don’t see as applying to them. That’s the case with most laws… people support what they don’t see applying to them.
MikeB302000,
You owned firearms legally, did you support gun control back then or did you just start wanting to restrict our rights?
Did you support gun control when you illegally owned your firearms or is this a recent conversion?
Once again, you show that you seem to miss the point — they are portrayed as just every day gun owners but in reality they are activists.
Now if their identities were announced, their affiliations were mentioned there wouldn’t be a problem.
But it’s like if you had failed to mention that you live in Italy but support gun control law in America — it’s important to know you won’t be affected by the restrictions, isn’t it?
My question is why do these people not show their affiliations?
I see it as lying by omission, trying to convince people the share the same beliefs, same values, without letting people know their motivation.
Tho, Sebastian, I would suspect those numbers are getting smaller and smaller by the day as people see the true stripes of the anti-rights activists.
The above video smacks of the early 90s when people with their pump shotguns, bolt-action rifles with walnut stocks, and .30-30 lever rifles, and maybe an old S&W Model 10, or Colt M1911A1 tucked in a nightstand or the top shelf of a closet for protection.
They saw things like AR-15s, AK patern rifles, and the double-stack polymer frame Glocks as something foreign and odd, and when they were told packs of lies about them, they not only believed them, but supported legislation to have them restricted.
Now 20 years later they saw that the “danger” of “Assault Weapons” were a pack of lies (Hell even MikeB is on record admitting the law was a sham) just about every house owns an AR-15, many people not only use them for home defense and target shooting, but also for hunting, the double-stack polymer handgun is a market every major maker has gotten into, and conceal carry laws have been liberalized across the boards.
The latter bit with calls of increased gun violence, which was answered by, most often, a trend in the opposite direction.
The gun owners who turned on their own in the 90s have also saw that that sweeping law was hardly the end of the bans.
I’d imagine most gun owners have wised up to these silly laws, and know what side they should stand on. Hence why when I saw this video I saw a rat, and wasn’t surprised with the information you unearthed.
The one stipulation is gun owners who don’t consider themselves gun owners. I’ve met many a person who “Doesn’t own guns”….but has an old shotgun up in the attic, or has an old revolver in a shoebox somewhere that hasn’t been shot in years, so they don’t think they count, nor do they care what happens to these accumulated heirlooms.
The one-gun-a-month law is not onerous. Most of you guys who react so strongly to it are doing so because you can’t stand ANY restrictions. It reminds me of young children who cannot accept the word “no.”
The folks who agree that the one-gun-a-month legislation is reasonable, both gun owners and gun control folks, are of the belief that it would help cut down on the straw purchasing of multiple weapons. Everyone, I think, agrees that’s a good thing. And in this case, the cost to legitimate gun owners is small.
Care to explain how One-gun-a-month is both not onerous, and what it will accomplish.
Please make sure to note Massachusetts state gun laws (of which you are well versed) and your own involvement with the United States Criminal element.
So I’m a woman and I’ve decided to leave my abusive ex husband. I want a pistol for my apartment, and to carry in my vehicle when I’m away from home. Maybe one to carry too. Now I have to wait three months to get them?
There’s no other fundamental constitutional right we permit to be rationed in this way.
Hell how about a light small Conceal carry gun (Small and light enough to carry every day and be there when she needs it) and a larger Home Defense gun because the best conceal carry guns are a mess of compromises. And then a .22 gun for training on the cheap.
That’s not an unreasonable amount of purchases, and I’ve actually seen several people do that when they finally decided to buy guns.
Every legal gun transfer in Massachusetts includes the state Form FA-10 with is then digitized by the Firearms Records Bureau.
If Gov. Patrick wanted, he could ask the FRB for a weekly report telling him who bought even more than one gun in the past 30 days.
If any of those licenced individuals “looked” suspicious, he could initiate an investigation, and have them arrested for any illegal straw sales.
No new laws need to be passed to do this. In fact the horrid FA-10 system was passed so that straw sales could be caught.
If criminals are buying batches of guns, they aren’t filing FA-10s. If they are not filing FA-10s, the One-Gun-A-Month law won’t touch them, either.
All right, I give up. Poor abused women should be allowed limitless gun purchases. But, what if some of them turn out to be straw purchasers for their abusers? No, that’ll never work. Or, I should say, that’ll never work well. That’ll continue to be part of the problem.
And your real motive is not the hypothetical abused woman, it’s your own convenience and indignation for any gun restrictions.
Its so nice to have an admitted criminal, and mentally ill troll to speak for those of us who are rational, intelligent, and follow the law.
Thanks Sparky!
MikeB302000,
Let me see if I have this correct
Because it is already illegal to make a ‘straw purchase’
Because it is already illegal for a convicted felon (and in most states) active drug user, etc to possess a firearm
Because it is already illegal to carry a firearm without an appropriate license or registration or permit (in most states)
Because it is already illegal to use a firearm to commit a crime
You want to make it illegal to purchase more than one gun a month, right?
If the criminals and their abetting accomplices are willing to break the law — what makes you think that 1 gun a month laws would have any affect?
Let me ask — again — what law that was not in place when you owned your firearms illegally would have stopped you?
“What’s a better example of sheep-like behavior than mindlessly repeating catchy one liners, regardless of their veracity?†-MikeB30200