I just finished with the Portland Herald and there it explained he was in Malden, MA. Close but far enough that he was someone else's concerns. Also interesting that I read that he belongs to other committee's? I hope the townspeople are keeping a close eye.
I couldn't believe what I read for headlines this morning. Well, considering the source I probably could. I've had a number of discussions with Mr. Masters on gun issues over time and this is what I would expect him to think and say. This could likely go viral and put Sabattus back on the national map again. Whether you agree or disagree with a President, politician or your fellow neighbor this kind of rhetoric is unacceptable. I can only ask the question: Is this the type of person one would vote to help run a town? I feel empathy for the residents of Sabattus and all decent gun owners. This is not a good example .... of anything. To think Mr. Marsters was a police officer in Massachusetts makes me cringe. I was born and raised there and hope to God he was wasn't where I lived "protecting" us. Just exercising my freedom of speech.
We all have our opinions. I suspect your trying to interpret both people's words and thoughts and scholars have a difficult time. My only response to your question, and to many others, is a question back, and I do despise questions answered with a question, but it needs to be asked. What if there were no gun-control whatsoever in New York city or in Chicago for instance? If you think that crime and violence will drop I then suppose that removing the speed limits on our roads and highway could be a way lower the accidents and fatalities on our roads and highways. Before you begin to mention the fact "but self defense is a "right", try seeing where my logic is headed. Your question, in itself, is just NOT a valid question, I don't care how many times you and others ask it.
However, in this 21st century we're encountering things most people never would have imagined. To apply that, totally, would be a disservice to our society as a whole. How about a suggestion to remove all restrictions and let people do as they wish, anywhere, anytime in this country? Can any reasonable person think that could work?
John Adams said "and which PERHAPS", I could not surrender. Jefferson said "disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes", but we're really not too sure who "they" really encompass.
The 2nd amendment is not absolute, nor should it ever be, no matter whose interpretation.
Right on Jason. By the way mentioning the word "lot" reminds me of someone. Bringing the 2.5 million number into any discussion tells me I'd be wasting my time with this, but I'll add my piece. Most people propagate that information from "More guns .... less Crime" by the infamous Mr John Lott Jr. Anyone who reads the book, and not just the highlights and HIS conclusions but also the charts and figures he comes up with, should be able to come to a logical conclusion. It's pure theory based on junk science. His work has been disputed and will continue to be. I've had the distinction of having a personal discussion with him and I'm sure he's working on another book. Maybe he'll now have a figure of 4 million. Like you said Jason, this figure is 20 YEARS OLD! Done by phone surveys, spotty data and with the general understanding, so we're led to believe, that no gun owner likes to advertise whether he had a gun or not. Maybe there's 2.5 million or 65,000 that love to brag? I doubt even the lower number and is likely bogus but no one can prove it either way. No facts to back it up. Let go of it people! Go on to something more meaningful that can be debated or discussed. I hate theories, they have meaning to only the one/ones that created it.
With two first names I'll answer to both. People can call me anything, just don't call me late for supper ..... aarrrggg!
If the majority of people are carrying ........... your worries will be fruitless. Ask the parrot, I bet he agrees.
Good to see ya Pirate!
What was written in the "op-ed" appears to be some facts to me. I don't profess to have all the answers and I surely I don't approach "op-eds" with blinders on. Where are the disputes to what she said? Just saying it's biased it a shortcut to nowhere. Dispute the claims written. Bring something to table that references the topic. Gun issues always go off on tangents and for some reason the gun advocates always end up including words like what you use, divisive and incendiary, and many statements by others. Why not debate the topic here. Where is she wrong? Where is she right? Call it what you may. To me it's a fact-check, until proven otherwise written in an op-ed.
I'm curious as to why not. Great article. There's nothing better than fact checks and I'd love to hear any debate. More interesting is these sites Catalist LLC and emerges.com. and who are their recipients??
Nothing like good information. Issues debated without it can never reach a solution.