Lexington Mass to vote on Semi auto forced sale

[bignflnut]

Fast-forward almost 240 years to the day and some of the residents of Lexington have come full circle.

They are now advocating for the government to seize legally owned firearms from the town’s residents.

The town of Lexington utilizes an annual town meeting to set policy, bylaws and approve things like the town budget. The residents do not vote directly; instead they have approximately 200 “town meeting members” who vote in representation of their constituents.

One such town meeting member, a Harvard professor named Robert Rotberg has taken it upon himself to enact, what he hopes will be “a movement against assault weapons that would capture the state and therefore maybe explode to reach the country.”

He has seized upon the recent ban enacted in Highland Park, IL, and has modeled his own ban, almost copying the language verbatim. Filing it to the town meeting warrant as Article 34.

The article also has a provision in which Lexington’s licensed gun owners who own firearms included in the ban would be forced to sell, render inoperable, or have them seized and destroyed by the police department.

Oh, they're LICENSED gun owners...I wondered how they knew who had what guns.

Highland Park...why does that ring a bell...Oh yeah! SCOTUS couldn't muster even 4 votes to hear the case...so its ban stands!

The Supreme Court effectively let stand the decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Highland Park and about 20 other Illinois cities hurriedly passed two years ago.

[Javelin Man]

American Revolution Part Dieux?

NASA put a few cows out in space, it was the herd shot around the world!

[Mr. Glock]

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

Oh, and the Antis always tell us that registration never leads to confiscation?

[keepitsimple]

It's always interesting to discuss articles like this with people who support the idea. I ask, "but what if someone says no and doesn't give up whatever it is you're taking from them?", and they'll always say, "We'll make it illegal and (have someone else) take it by force!"

Taking someone's house or car or personal effects from them at gunpoint is a terrible crime of violence. But disarming them at gunpoint is not only OK, but a crime if not followed with total compliance.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole argument. Both sides.

Pro gun: "You guys are too stupid, naive, and dependent on others to realize that YOU need guns and shouldn't be banning any of them! You're either too young to remember history or too stupid to have learned any of it to begin with. You and your ilk are so full of yourselves and your progressive ideologies that you've completely forgotten that not every human being lives in an urban metropolis with 2+ million population that faces the same daily struggles as you in their concrete jungle. Your ethics and morals are completely misguided and have no foundation in reality."

Anti-gun: "You guys are stupid, naive, and you're completely incapable of giving up your 'Every problem is a nail for my hammer' mentality. The world has grown up and human beings no longer have to live off of the land like savages or neanderthals. No one 'needs' to do these things anymore for survival because we've systematically made them obsolete; it's called evolution, and you're holding the entire heard back by hanging on to these outdated principles as bitterly as you are and refusing to progress/evolve with the rest of 'us'. Your ethics and morals are completely misguided and have no foundation in reality."

Round and round it goes, two idiots screaming at each other through a wall.

[Bama.45]

It's always interesting to discuss articles like this with people who support the idea. I ask, "but what if someone says no and doesn't give up whatever it is you're taking from them?", and they'll always say, "We'll make it illegal and (have someone else) take it by force!"

Taking someone's house or car or personal effects from them at gunpoint is a terrible crime of violence. But disarming them at gunpoint is not only OK, but a crime if not followed with total compliance.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole argument. Both sides.

Pro gun: "You guys are too stupid, naive, and dependent on others to realize that YOU need guns and shouldn't be banning any of them! You're either too young to remember history or too stupid to have learned any of it to begin with. You and your ilk are so full of yourselves and your progressive ideologies that you've completely forgotten that not every human being lives in an urban metropolis with 2+ million population that faces the same daily struggles as you in their concrete jungle. Your ethics and morals are completely misguided and have no foundation in reality."

Anti-gun: "You guys are stupid, naive, and you're completely incapable of giving up your 'Every problem is a nail for my hammer' mentality. The world has grown up and human beings no longer have to live off of the land like savages or neanderthals. No one 'needs' to do these things anymore for survival because we've systematically made them obsolete; it's called evolution, and you're holding the entire heard back by hanging on to these outdated principles as bitterly as you are and refusing to progress/evolve with the rest of 'us'. Your ethics and morals are completely misguided and have no foundation in reality."

Round and round it goes, two idiots screaming at each other through a wall.

That is a good summary... I still like the idea of making anti's go door to door and confiscate peoples firearms.

That wouldn't be holding the herd back, but most likely thinning it.

[bignflnut]

It's always interesting to discuss articles like this with people who support the idea. I ask, "but what if someone says no and doesn't give up whatever it is you're taking from them?", and they'll always say, "We'll make it illegal and (have someone else) take it by force!"

Taking someone's house or car or personal effects from them at gunpoint is a terrible crime of violence. But disarming them at gunpoint is not only OK, but a crime if not followed with total compliance.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole argument. Both sides.

Hadn't heard this one:

[AlanM]

And now for the rest of the story:
March 9, 2016
Gun advocates call proposed Lexington ban an affront to liberty

LEXINGTON — Gun rights advocates spoke out Tuesday night against a proposal to ban certain types of semi-automatic weapons in Lexington, calling it an affront to the very principles on which their town and the nation were founded.

“The birthplace of American liberty is not going to be its gravesite,” said Michael Barg, a lifelong resident of Lexington. “This will accomplish nothing other than to glorify the proponents’ phony dogma and misinformed political ideals.”

Barg was one of about 150 gun rights advocates, including many from as far away as Lowell and Ashburnham, who appeared before the Board of Selectmen in opposition to a citizen’s petition that would create a town bylaw prohibiting the manufacture, sale, ownership, or possession of specific weapons in town.

Earlier, selectmen had unanimously voiced opposition to Rotberg’s proposed bylaw, as had Police Chief Mark Corr.

“This bylaw is not enforceable, and I ask you not to put me in a position to have to try,” he said.

“I do not want to see the irony that a law intended to save a life may actually cost a life trying to enforce it,” Corr said to a standing ovation from the crowd.

Then a week later:
Lexington man backs off proposed gun ban for the town

A Lexington man who proposed a local ban on “assault weapons” has switched gears after polling his fellow Town Meeting members, and will instead move forward with a nonbinding resolution urging state legislators to strengthen Massachusetts gun laws.

Robert Rotberg said his new measure asks the Board of Selectmen to initiate a townwide discussion about gun violence that would lead to “fully considered proposals” to present to the Legislature.

The interesting thing is that most of what this guy wants is already law in Mass.

[Mr. Glock]

Good to see there is still hope, when you get down to the business of the people.

[WY_Not]

Perhaps EVERYONE in Lexington needs to go read their history of what happened the last time they tried this crap in Lexington (and Concord). David Hackett Fischer has a great write up of the events of that day.

[glocksmith]

Anti-gun: The world has grown up and human beings no longer have to live off of the land like savages or neanderthals. No one 'needs' to do these things anymore for survival because we've systematically made them obsolete; it's called evolution, and you're holding the entire heard back by hanging on to these outdated principles as bitterly as you are and refusing to progress/evolve with the rest of 'us'. Your ethics and morals are completely misguided and have no foundation in reality."

I think the band DRI said it more eloquently in their 1989 song "Gun Control":

"We were given the right to bear arms
When our land was all ranch and farms
The law is old and in need of updating
There's no time time for hesitating"

[Bama.45]

Perhaps EVERYONE in Lexington needs to go read their history of what happened the last time they tried this crap in Lexington (and Concord). David Hackett Fischer has a great write up of the events of that day.

Yes he does.. That is a wonderful book.