A Gun-Grabber's Best Friend
State Senator Jarrett Barrios must have been enjoying his tea and crumpets this morning, poring over this Boston Herald story at breakfast time.
One gun, a bat, and 22 rounds of ammo? Boy, this guy totally sucks at stockpiling.
As opposed to this GQ cover shot...
Nice mustache, Spanky.
Yep.
Yes, of course, the venerable SKS "assault rifle".
Let's review...
Pistol grip? No.
Detachable magazine? No.
High-capacity magazine? No.
Folding or telescopic stock? No.
Flash hider? No.
Bayonet? AH-HA! GOTCHA!
Who here thinks Senator Barrios won't be looking to get this gun included in any "new and improved" "assault weapons" ban he undoubtedly has his minions working on already, eager to get it in front of Governor Patrick next year for his signature?
And once that domino falls, how far along the road will the demise of the Ruger Mini-14, or the Marlin Camp 9 Carbine be? Or any centerfire rifle, for that matter.
Let's see what other unnecessary and meaningless gun laws this idiot in Shrewsbury will inspire our friends in the Massachusetts General Court to foist upon the law-abiding people of Massachusetts.
Clearly, we need to make it harder for fruitballs like this to get their gun permits.
What??? How can that be?
I'm stunned.
Illegal sale, illegal purchase, two felony counts, yet Barrios and his ilk continue to pimp the notion that the solution here lies in prohibiting private transfers of firearms between licensed individuals. That's likely to be item #1 on his 2007 gun control agenda.
Never mind that multiple laws were broken in the course of this scumbag's acquisition of the weapon in question. Legislators don't get paid to enforce laws.
Now, do the math folks, nearly every gun used in a crime or bought and sold on the black market began it's "life" as a legally-purchased firearm. If anyone thinks the end goal of people like Senator Barrios is anything other that a state-wide ban on the private ownership of firearms, you are fooling yourselves.
Let's recap...
First, the law-abiding gun owners in this country were told by our elected officials that they needed to impose background checks at the point of purchase of firearms. This would supposedly provide the "balance" we needed between prohibiting criminals from obtaining guns and respecting the rights of the law-abiding populace.
Oops...turns out criminals could still get their hands on pretty much any kind of gun they wanted.
So, we here in the Bay State were presented with the concept of firearms licensing to ensure that only law-abiding people were able to purchase and possess firearms in the Commonwealth.
Turns out the criminals among us weren't to keen to play by that set of rules, either.
Then we got an upswing in gang violence in the 90's in the City of Boston, which did wonders to disprove the effectiveness of these fabulous gun laws, which were all enacted on the "promise" that they would help lower the violent crime rate, mainly in our inner-cities where the use and trafficking of narcotics had been most responsible for feeding the fires of gang violence.
But our "leaders" remaineda bunch of arrogant, totalitarian pricks with their heads lodged up their backsides less than convinced. So, we were told in 1998 that we needed to tighten further the restrictions on obtaining a license to own a firearm. You know, in the interest of striking that "balance" between prohibiting criminals from obtaining guns and respecting the rights of the law-abiding populace.
Detecting a pattern yet?
One of the first felt results of the Gun Control Act of 1998 was a considerable drop in the number of licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth. Any guesses what happened to the rate of assault-related injuries by firearm? Hint: It went up. Quel surprise!
Then we had our courageous Attorneys General Harshbarger and Reilly impose a series of "consumer safety" regulations, designed with but one goal in mind - to discourage gun makers from selling their products to properly-licensed individuals in Massachusetts.
You know, just one more "common sense" compromise between the people who understand and respect the Bill of Rights and our politicians who want to extract every ounce of personal responsibility and empowerment from the electorate that they possibly can.
Needless to say, these regulations seemed to bear no weight with the hundreds (OK, I'm lowballing it) of armed teenagers walking the streets of Dorchester, Roxbury, New Bedford, Lynn, etc., who continued arming themselves with piece-of-shit Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin .25-caliber pocket pistols and the like.
We clearly needed more "balance".
So, Jarrett Barrios and his friends saw to it that Massachusetts gun owners could no longer purchase guns that look like assault rifles, but function no differently than many common hunting rifles, you know, the kind that John Kerry has supposedly promised us are "OK" to own.
So, this so-called "assault weapons" ban was made law in Massachusetts, despite the fact that the federal legislation on which it is based, has come and gone with no measurable effect on the nation's violent crime rate.
Now, one would think, based on the rhetoric of the gun control lobby and their allies in the state legislature, that we'd have wiped violent crime off the map by now. Every piece of gun control signed into law has been foisted upon us as a knee-jerk, reactionary measure, designed to convince the voters that our leaders are doing something to keep the streets safe.
Well, after the powder residue and lead dust had settled at the end of 2005, city leaders in Boston found themselves with a 10-year-high homicide rate.
"Bridge to Control Room...MORE BALANCE!"
So, we got, among other things, Mayor Menino's dog and pony show of a gun buyback program that was launched with a flurry of photo ops and press releases, telling us how it would bring about a reduction in the rate of gun-related violence among our inner-city youths.
Any guesses as to how well that's worked?
All the while, we've had politicians from across the state proposing such brilliant ideas as...
- Mandatory GPS tracking devices installed in all new handguns sold in Massachusetts.
- Mandatory "microstamping" technology on all new handguns sold in Massachusetts.
- A statewide ban on BB guns and realistic looking toy guns.
- A 30-day waiting periods for the purchase of handguns (as if making someone wait 106 days for a gun permit isn't providing that individual with an ample "cool-down" period).
- One-gun-a-month laws - except for gang members.
- Mandatory liability insurance ($250,000 coverage) for all licensed gun owners - again, crack dealers and the lowlife scumbags responsible for the rise in gun-related violence in our cities need not apply.
With every failed measure of gun control they implement, we see a violent crime rate that continues to fluctuate independently of any such legislation rammed down our throats by those who "know what's best for us".
Yet, we're told to this day that still more restrictions and tighter regulations are needed to "close the loopholes", and obtain that long sought-after "balance".
It's nothing more than an unchecked cycle of feel-good, do nothingliberalism totalitarianism with only one "logical" conclusion.
"Turn 'em in!"
Gee, I'll miss this place.
A Shrewsbury chef who dubbed himself the "teenybopper killa" and cited Columbine killer Eric Harris as an inspiration was nabbed with a stash of weapons after making online threats to snuff out "preppy" teens, authorities said.
Cops say 23-year-old Darren Thompson threatened to go on a killing spree and stockpiled weapons, including an AK-47-like semiautomatic rifle, 22 rounds of ammo and a bat with protruding nails he dubbed the "ugly stick."
One gun, a bat, and 22 rounds of ammo? Boy, this guy totally sucks at stockpiling.
In an Oct. 13 online posting, Thompson said he came up with the weapon's name "because it can (expletive) someone up and make them 'ugly.' "
As opposed to this GQ cover shot...
Nice mustache, Spanky.
Police served a search warrant Thursday night and arrested Thompson at the Shrewsbury home where he lives with his parents.
Yep.
He pleaded innocent in Westboro District Court yesterday to weapons charges, including unlawful possession of an SKS assault rifle. He was ordered held without bail and is due back in court Monday.
Yes, of course, the venerable SKS "assault rifle".
Let's review...
Pistol grip? No.
Detachable magazine? No.
High-capacity magazine? No.
Folding or telescopic stock? No.
Flash hider? No.
Bayonet? AH-HA! GOTCHA!
Who here thinks Senator Barrios won't be looking to get this gun included in any "new and improved" "assault weapons" ban he undoubtedly has his minions working on already, eager to get it in front of Governor Patrick next year for his signature?
And once that domino falls, how far along the road will the demise of the Ruger Mini-14, or the Marlin Camp 9 Carbine be? Or any centerfire rifle, for that matter.
Let's see what other unnecessary and meaningless gun laws this idiot in Shrewsbury will inspire our friends in the Massachusetts General Court to foist upon the law-abiding people of Massachusetts.
Clearly, we need to make it harder for fruitballs like this to get their gun permits.
He had no firearms license.
What??? How can that be?
I'm stunned.
He also told cops he bought the rifle for $200 from a friend at work...
Illegal sale, illegal purchase, two felony counts, yet Barrios and his ilk continue to pimp the notion that the solution here lies in prohibiting private transfers of firearms between licensed individuals. That's likely to be item #1 on his 2007 gun control agenda.
Never mind that multiple laws were broken in the course of this scumbag's acquisition of the weapon in question. Legislators don't get paid to enforce laws.
Now, do the math folks, nearly every gun used in a crime or bought and sold on the black market began it's "life" as a legally-purchased firearm. If anyone thinks the end goal of people like Senator Barrios is anything other that a state-wide ban on the private ownership of firearms, you are fooling yourselves.
Let's recap...
First, the law-abiding gun owners in this country were told by our elected officials that they needed to impose background checks at the point of purchase of firearms. This would supposedly provide the "balance" we needed between prohibiting criminals from obtaining guns and respecting the rights of the law-abiding populace.
Oops...turns out criminals could still get their hands on pretty much any kind of gun they wanted.
So, we here in the Bay State were presented with the concept of firearms licensing to ensure that only law-abiding people were able to purchase and possess firearms in the Commonwealth.
Turns out the criminals among us weren't to keen to play by that set of rules, either.
Then we got an upswing in gang violence in the 90's in the City of Boston, which did wonders to disprove the effectiveness of these fabulous gun laws, which were all enacted on the "promise" that they would help lower the violent crime rate, mainly in our inner-cities where the use and trafficking of narcotics had been most responsible for feeding the fires of gang violence.
But our "leaders" remained
Detecting a pattern yet?
One of the first felt results of the Gun Control Act of 1998 was a considerable drop in the number of licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth. Any guesses what happened to the rate of assault-related injuries by firearm? Hint: It went up. Quel surprise!
Then we had our courageous Attorneys General Harshbarger and Reilly impose a series of "consumer safety" regulations, designed with but one goal in mind - to discourage gun makers from selling their products to properly-licensed individuals in Massachusetts.
You know, just one more "common sense" compromise between the people who understand and respect the Bill of Rights and our politicians who want to extract every ounce of personal responsibility and empowerment from the electorate that they possibly can.
Needless to say, these regulations seemed to bear no weight with the hundreds (OK, I'm lowballing it) of armed teenagers walking the streets of Dorchester, Roxbury, New Bedford, Lynn, etc., who continued arming themselves with piece-of-shit Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin .25-caliber pocket pistols and the like.
We clearly needed more "balance".
So, Jarrett Barrios and his friends saw to it that Massachusetts gun owners could no longer purchase guns that look like assault rifles, but function no differently than many common hunting rifles, you know, the kind that John Kerry has supposedly promised us are "OK" to own.
So, this so-called "assault weapons" ban was made law in Massachusetts, despite the fact that the federal legislation on which it is based, has come and gone with no measurable effect on the nation's violent crime rate.
Now, one would think, based on the rhetoric of the gun control lobby and their allies in the state legislature, that we'd have wiped violent crime off the map by now. Every piece of gun control signed into law has been foisted upon us as a knee-jerk, reactionary measure, designed to convince the voters that our leaders are doing something to keep the streets safe.
Well, after the powder residue and lead dust had settled at the end of 2005, city leaders in Boston found themselves with a 10-year-high homicide rate.
"Bridge to Control Room...MORE BALANCE!"
So, we got, among other things, Mayor Menino's dog and pony show of a gun buyback program that was launched with a flurry of photo ops and press releases, telling us how it would bring about a reduction in the rate of gun-related violence among our inner-city youths.
Any guesses as to how well that's worked?
All the while, we've had politicians from across the state proposing such brilliant ideas as...
- Mandatory GPS tracking devices installed in all new handguns sold in Massachusetts.
- Mandatory "microstamping" technology on all new handguns sold in Massachusetts.
- A statewide ban on BB guns and realistic looking toy guns.
- A 30-day waiting periods for the purchase of handguns (as if making someone wait 106 days for a gun permit isn't providing that individual with an ample "cool-down" period).
- One-gun-a-month laws - except for gang members.
- Mandatory liability insurance ($250,000 coverage) for all licensed gun owners - again, crack dealers and the lowlife scumbags responsible for the rise in gun-related violence in our cities need not apply.
With every failed measure of gun control they implement, we see a violent crime rate that continues to fluctuate independently of any such legislation rammed down our throats by those who "know what's best for us".
Yet, we're told to this day that still more restrictions and tighter regulations are needed to "close the loopholes", and obtain that long sought-after "balance".
It's nothing more than an unchecked cycle of feel-good, do nothing
"Turn 'em in!"
Gee, I'll miss this place.
