Just What Massachusetts Needs

More gun control!

The bill would allow suspects to be held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing for charges that involve illegal possession, use, or trafficking of guns, the governor's office said.

The legislation would also create a new felony of using a gun while committing a misdemeanor, limit gun purchases to one per month, and require sales of guns by private parties to be recorded by licensed gun dealers.

The press release from Governor Hopeydope's official website can be found here. It clarifies one major error in the Boston Globe article excerpted above.

Specifically, the legislation would:

[...]

Create a new crime (10-year felony) for possessing a gun while committing a misdemeanor that involves the use of force.

Nope. No gray area there.

For additional commentary from yours truly, feel free to scroll through the comments section of the Boston Globe piece linked above, where I posted under the clever pseudonym, Bruce. I'm not in much of a mood for copy-n'-pasting right now.

UPDATE: Full Boston Globe article here. Nice to see Governor Patrick getting his ass handed to him in the comments there. Of course, there are a few gems in there from some members of the ignorance-based "progressive" community.

OK, maybe just a little copy-n-paste action...

messageboardterrorist wrote:

There are people out there who obtain licenses and buy weapons to resell them to criminals.

Conley and Patrick have been asked on multiple occasion to produce some evidence to back up that claim. They have yet to do so. If this claim is accurate, there would be a solid paper trail of evidence. Where is it?

geolovely wrote:

Odd how the abridgement of individual rights is accepted by members of the gun owning community as long as it's cloaked in the newspeak name "Patriot Act".

You haven't spent a lot of time with gun owners have you? Your comment is dripping with the ignorance of the uninformed. A more accurate statement would be directed at the hypocrisy of most gay marriage supporters in Massachusetts: "Odd how the abridgement of individual rights is accepted by members of the gay community as long as it's cloaked in the newspeak name "Reducing Violent Crime".

DirtyWaterLover wrote:

Maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

What prevents a licensed gun owner from selling a gun to a non-licensed gun owner?

The same thing that prevents the millions of licensed drivers in this country from mowing down pedestrians on sidewalks. It's called a functioning moral compass, and its something that 99.999% of us have.

wobecky wrote:

No one needs to own a gun. You got that right. And tell me the last time a homeowner needed to shoot a burglar or would-be murderer. Gimme me a break.... Disarm America Now!!!

I don't blame you Becky for not knowing of any such instances. The Boston Globe doesn't publish those stories that portray gun ownership as a positive asset to society.

College Park, Georgia (just a couple days ago): Two armed men barged into an apartment where 10 college students were having a get-together. They separated the men from the women and started "counting bullets" to see if they had enough. One student had a gun in his backpack, retrieved it, and opened fire, killing one home invader, and causing the other to flee.

Stories like this happen EVERY DAY, whether the Globe cares to print them or not.

Oops...one more. This one just popped up.

joao2002 wrote:

WOW you people are nuts. Guns to protect yourself, are you kidding. I work in a community where gangs are prevalent way of life, guess what all these "gang bangers" use as an excuse to carry a gun: "its so I can protect myself on the streets". Gee it sounds so familiar. So the answer is more guns.... More guns means more people need to protect themselves, more people need to protect themselves means we need more guns.... when does it stop people. Bottom line the only reason you need a gun is if your planning to hurt someone or something either illegally or legally. Less guns less violence, less violence less chance you will need to "protect" yourself.

You'll never understand. The staggering level of ignorance in your comment there more than adequately confirms that.

I own and carry a gun on a regular basis. I sincerely hope I NEVER HAVE TO USE it, but if someone threatens my wife or kids with imminent physical harm (PREDATORY violence), you can bet your you-know-what that I will return as large a volume of harm (PROTECTIVE violence) in return until the threat is neutralized.

Any parent not willing to use force to defend his or her family from imminent harm isn't worth spit in my book. How anyone could consider rolling over and surrendering their children's well-being to a violent assailant just makes no sense whatsoever.

Most of the laws these politicians propose serve only to impair good people's ability to dispense PROTECTIVE violence, while doing nothing to thwart the evil-minded from inflicting PREDATORY violence on their victims, at will.

You're not living in reality, sorry to be the one to tell you that.

(Predatory Violence vs. Protective Violence - H/T to Kevin Baker)

UPDATE II: OK, one more copy-n-paste from the Globe comments, then I'm done with this. I can't continue this battle of wits with these helplessly unarmed foes.

It's simply not fair.

joao2002, how can you write:

"It is sad to say but nothing good has ever come out of a situation where someone has had to act by using a weapon of any type."

...and then follow it up by stating you're not ignorant???

Here are a couple people who would beg to differ with your "progressive" (and WOEFULLY IGNORANT) outlook on this issue.

Gracie Watson from Jackson, Mississippi was out shopping at a local Dollar Store, back in March of 2007. As she was walking through the parking lot, in broad daylight, she was attacked by her ex-husband who proceeded to punch her and kick her mercilessly. Then, while she was laying their motionless, he got on top of her and stabbed her about 20 times in the neck, back and arms.

Not content with the extent of this violent assault, her estranged spouse then proceeded to douse her with gasoline and readied himself to light a match.

He was intent on burning her alive in front of a crowd of onlookers, who were yelling, honking their horns and calling 911 in efforts to stop this evil assault, but to no avail.

Only ONE THING saved Ms. Watson from a certain horrendous death that afternoon. A passerby, who was lawfully carrying a handgun, got out of his car, drew his weapon and yelled "Stop, or I'm going to shoot. And if you run, I'm going to kill you!"

The man held Mr. Watson at bay until police arrived at the scene.

Absent this courageous - and ARMED - citizen, Mrs. Watson would have been reduced to a lump of charcoal, long before the police ever showed up.

Want another? Maybe one a little closer to home?

Geoff Hamann, of Rochester, New Hampshire was at home one evening in September, 2005, when a man broke into his home through an upstairs window. This individual was naked, clutching a tube of mechanical lubricant, walking toward the room where Mr. Hamann's wife and kids were, and repeatedly yelling "I'm coming to get you!"

Fortunately, one of the people in this story had not fallen under that false impression that "there's no good reason to own a gun". After warning this man several times to get out of his house, to no success, Mr. Hamann drew his gun, fired, and killed the intruder.

Again, an individual intent on causing PREDATORY violence - without a gun - was stopped by a citizen returning an equal or greater measure of PROTECTIVE violence, using the most effective tool available.

I've got plenty more stories just like these two. How many more do you want?

If you get your "news" from the Boston Globe, MSNBC, and the Comedy Channel, I understand why you might not have heard of these stories of lawful, defensive gun use that has saved people from death and grievous injury.

I need a drink.