Adam Reilly was joined by John Rosenthal, co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, and Pierre Roberto Salomon, founder of Salomon Firearms Training to discuss the issue.
What John is in complete denial of, because he is a complete liar and an anticonstitutionalist, is that firearm ownership is a constitutional right and a civil right that can not be taken away without the due process of law. He is making points that would inherently deny a civil right to masses of people who believe in freedom.
Crazy thing , None of those things happened or happen in Massachusetts. DWI, restraining orders what are the statistics of these people who have things of this nature on there records, who actually go out and use any type of firearms to perform acts of violence on anyone ? I’m sure it’s relatively small if there is a statistic at all. Firearms are being tied to activities that have nothing to do with firearms. This is how rights are being stripped away from individuals in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts the constitution has been manipulated. Rights are not rights if they can be taken away. They are privileges. And the constitution says nothing about privileges. It’s a right. That shall not be infringed.
This guy has no clue I lived in the streets for years the state of massachussets has no clue how many guns are on our streets I've seen first hand the types of people who own firearms it would shock you if you had any clue to how many guns are in the streets of massachussets I'm pro gun but if I really wanted to I could wistleblow the lid off of how many guns are in our city's and how and why but I'm pro gun and would never do so but the older white Gentaman has no idea what's really going on in the streets of America and one reason is because the state gave the police departments discretion which is why there are so many illegally owned guns in our streets it would seriously blow your mind if you really knew the truth of what's really going on
JOSEPH CARDONE exactly, we have this underworld of guns floating around, essentially Massachusetts has created an environment where the only people who have firearms are criminals, aka making criminals more powerful than the average civilian, and a criminal has to commit a crime to be considered a criminal. So that being said you have guns in the hands of people who commit crimes, but refuse to arm the innocent law abiding citizens. If we had more legal guns the black market that thrives in Boston wouldn't really go anywhere
CORRECT Joseph, when i was a kid in Dorchester, the neighbor kids, in several yards, stored there firearms right in their back yards, and the cops only acted to remove them if they happen to be searching in that yard. I recently, obtained my MA, LTC, and had to go through so many hoops, I should joined a circus to get hoop training. Plus I have always been law abiding, never arrested, or violent to anyone.
A police chief should not have any discretion on any permits being issued. All states should be permitless! If you have any felonies, or convictions of course you shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm. But saying this chief is the perfect human being and has the right to decide who can carry a firearm which is every citizens constitutional right is outrageous. My god I fucking hate Massachusetts.
I agree with everything massachusetts is doing except letting the chief of the different cities to have the choice of giving someone the right to have a license after passing all the requirements. So you are clean, passed everything but the chief dont like the way you dress so you wont get the license. Im my opinion is Bull. You should be able to get a license to carry with no restrictions if you pass all the requirements period.
While I was still a raging drunk, I would have qualified for a Massachusetts gun permit. In getting sober 3 years ago, I sought help for my alcoholism from the state so I no longer qualify for a gun permit here in the commonwealth. Funny story, I owned a gun for 8 years in Arizona, many of those years, I was drinking so much, I’d regularly fall down the stairs in my home. Most of those years were after they legalized concealed carry without training.
He’s proud of all the infringements on the people’s 2A rights. It’s a shame. Just heard him on a recent podcast with Colion Noir and he’s no more educated now than when this video came out.
Preach! I bought my gun at a show in Arizona. Because my last name is Jones, they were unable to do an on-the-spot background check, there are just too many people with my name, especially in Arizona. I had to pick up my gun at the shop a few days later.
federal law you are a gun dealer if you sell more than 3 fire arms and are required to get background checks to keep paper records, get licensed with the ATF as a gun dealer.
Commiechusetts. I grew up in mass. Got my FID card and CCW in 1972. Both had expiration dates of indefinite stamped on them. 1984 that all ended. Letter from the state saying law had changed. Both changed to reissue upon approval of police chief. 1985 I move out of commiechusetts to a free state and have never looked back. I can walk into a store buy ammo no problem no permit needed. Walk in buy a firearm walk out same day within an hour. I don’t know how any American can live in the communist northeast. I’d never move back there. Ever
You can’t argue that the 2nd amendment was meant for muskets and then argue that we should have licensing and training which was not a thing when the amendment was written - let’s stay consistent.
Well armed is a relative term which means their intent is to be as well armed as the government. So it is a fluid term. At the time it meant muskets and cannons but has changed over time
1. Gatling guns were a thing in development at the time. 2 a musket could literally split someone in half if it hit them correctly. 3. it is keeping it out of the hands of people that could be better off with it and it is hurting people who are innocent and not doing illegal things. if you are going to do a crime nothing will stop you
no the 50 million different laws make it hard to enforce the law.... it gets confusing and makes it easier for criminals to take advantage of flaws in background checks and information.
Rosenthal always starts with "I own a gun." So.....that makes you infinitely more qualified to make judgement calls on who should have a gun and what rules should be applied to their sale, use, licensing etc? Hey....I own a car....I should be allowed to race in a NASCAR event or the Indy 500.....right? Rosenthal dislikes guns and, consequently, gun owners. I am sure he would support government confiscation of various semi auto guns. Don't worry John.....you are living in the right state with that attitude.
John Smith Good debate my ass . You're brain-dead. Long live the implied u.s. Constitution. For husband in the world since 1913 / 1933 Federal Reserve Act kicked in as the bankers took over from the bankrupt America and we were all turned into indentured servants to the Federal Reserve world bankers. If you want facts Mr Smith then research this information for yourself. Then debate with friends, and get the accuracies out in the open. This is more media bias bullshit. Mr. Solomon was much too polite with this communist piece of shit across from him... Either one across from him.
If this bill ever becomes law then it should NOT apply to those 33 States that don't do a back ground check at all. It should only apply to the 17 States that do back ground checks if what John saying is true.
Monica Jones nope not at all, i’ve had a few Mr. meaner marijuana charges never been found guilty though. Some continued without a finding and then ended.
I'm always confused by this stuff. I can never tell if the people are just uneducated on the topic or are educated and lie and propagate false narratives to get more people to support their views. The guy in the middle is so far off on what he's saying it borders on flat out lies. Almost nothing he said is accurate.
Surt Andvettsson I am borderline communist and proud of it. I legally concealed carried in Arizona for years yet back here in good old Take-it-up-the-assachusetts, I’m not eligible for gun ownership. The reason I’m not eligible is because I got sober, were I still a daily drinker and regular faller, I’d be golden. So watch how you paint us, please.
It’s called the 2nd amendment. END OF STORY.
What John is in complete denial of, because he is a complete liar and an anticonstitutionalist, is that firearm ownership is a constitutional right and a civil right that can not be taken away without the due process of law. He is making points that would inherently deny a civil right to masses of people who believe in freedom.
It's illegal to charge a fee for a RIGHT!
I think Vermont and new hampshire have lower gun death rates. And they have constitutional carry.
higher gun deaths lower violent crime
SHALL NOT be infringed
Crazy thing ,
None of those things happened or happen in Massachusetts.
DWI, restraining orders what are the statistics of these people who have things of this nature on there records, who actually go out and use any type of firearms to perform acts of violence on anyone ? I’m sure it’s relatively small if there is a statistic at all.
Firearms are being tied to activities that have nothing to do with firearms.
This is how rights are being stripped away from individuals in Massachusetts.
In Massachusetts the constitution has been manipulated.
Rights are not rights if they can be taken away.
They are privileges.
And the constitution says nothing about privileges.
It’s a right.
That shall not be infringed.
This guy has no clue I lived in the streets for years the state of massachussets has no clue how many guns are on our streets I've seen first hand the types of people who own firearms it would shock you if you had any clue to how many guns are in the streets of massachussets I'm pro gun but if I really wanted to I could wistleblow the lid off of how many guns are in our city's and how and why but I'm pro gun and would never do so but the older white Gentaman has no idea what's really going on in the streets of America and one reason is because the state gave the police departments discretion which is why there are so many illegally owned guns in our streets it would seriously blow your mind if you really knew the truth of what's really going on
JOSEPH CARDONE exactly, we have this underworld of guns floating around, essentially Massachusetts has created an environment where the only people who have firearms are criminals, aka making criminals more powerful than the average civilian, and a criminal has to commit a crime to be considered a criminal. So that being said you have guns in the hands of people who commit crimes, but refuse to arm the innocent law abiding citizens. If we had more legal guns the black market that thrives in Boston wouldn't really go anywhere
CORRECT Joseph, when i was a kid in Dorchester, the neighbor kids, in several yards, stored there firearms right in their back yards, and the cops only acted to remove them if they happen to be searching in that yard. I recently, obtained my MA, LTC, and had to go through so many hoops, I should joined a circus to get hoop training. Plus I have always been law abiding, never arrested, or violent to anyone.
Unarmed citizens rarely revolt.
I feel safer when law abiding citizens are carrying
A police chief should not have any discretion on any permits being issued. All states should be permitless! If you have any felonies, or convictions of course you shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm. But saying this chief is the perfect human being and has the right to decide who can carry a firearm which is every citizens constitutional right is outrageous. My god I fucking hate Massachusetts.
car is more dangerous than a gun... a car is a 2 ton weapon. . mas has a high death rate have you ever been in lowell...
I agree with everything massachusetts is doing except letting the chief of the different cities to have the choice of giving someone the right to have a license after passing all the requirements. So you are clean, passed everything but the chief dont like the way you dress so you wont get the license. Im my opinion is Bull. You should be able to get a license to carry with no restrictions if you pass all the requirements period.
While I was still a raging drunk, I would have qualified for a Massachusetts gun permit. In getting sober 3 years ago, I sought help for my alcoholism from the state so I no longer qualify for a gun permit here in the commonwealth. Funny story, I owned a gun for 8 years in Arizona, many of those years, I was drinking so much, I’d regularly fall down the stairs in my home. Most of those years were after they legalized concealed carry without training.
He’s proud of all the infringements on the people’s 2A rights. It’s a shame. Just heard him on a recent podcast with Colion Noir and he’s no more educated now than when this video came out.
The myth of the loophole at gun shows is just that a myth You’re not buying a toothbrush
Preach! I bought my gun at a show in Arizona. Because my last name is Jones, they were unable to do an on-the-spot background check, there are just too many people with my name, especially in Arizona. I had to pick up my gun at the shop a few days later.
federal law you are a gun dealer if you sell more than 3 fire arms and are required to get background checks to keep paper records, get licensed with the ATF as a gun dealer.
Commiechusetts. I grew up in mass. Got my FID card and CCW in 1972. Both had expiration dates of indefinite stamped on them. 1984 that all ended. Letter from the state saying law had changed. Both changed to reissue upon approval of police chief. 1985 I move out of commiechusetts to a free state and have never looked back. I can walk into a store buy ammo no problem no permit needed. Walk in buy a firearm walk out same day within an hour. I don’t know how any American can live in the communist northeast. I’d never move back there. Ever
You can’t argue that the 2nd amendment was meant for muskets and then argue that we should have licensing and training which was not a thing when the amendment was written - let’s stay consistent.
Well armed is a relative term which means their intent is to be as well armed as the government. So it is a fluid term. At the time it meant muskets and cannons but has changed over time
1. Gatling guns were a thing in development at the time. 2 a musket could literally split someone in half if it hit them correctly. 3. it is keeping it out of the hands of people that could be better off with it and it is hurting people who are innocent and not doing illegal things. if you are going to do a crime nothing will stop you
The black guy is 100% correct the other guy should be deported to north Korea he would fit right in there!
Massachusetts doesn't require background checks on private transfers either.
And rightly so it’s encroachment of a UNALIENABLE RIGHT more than half the gun laws on Massachusetts books are unconstitutional so are null and void!
no the 50 million different laws make it hard to enforce the law.... it gets confusing and makes it easier for criminals to take advantage of flaws in background checks and information.
New hampshire absolutely requires backround checks when buying from dealer i just had to wait 2 days for my check to come back
Rosenthal always starts with "I own a gun." So.....that makes you infinitely more qualified to make judgement calls on who should have a gun and what rules should be applied to their sale, use, licensing etc? Hey....I own a car....I should be allowed to race in a NASCAR event or the Indy 500.....right?
Rosenthal dislikes guns and, consequently, gun owners. I am sure he would support government confiscation of various semi auto guns. Don't worry John.....you are living in the right state with that attitude.
Good debate. I want the facts!!!
John Smith
Good debate my ass . You're brain-dead. Long live the implied u.s. Constitution. For husband in the world since 1913 / 1933 Federal Reserve Act kicked in as the bankers took over from the bankrupt America and we were all turned into indentured servants to the Federal Reserve world bankers. If you want facts Mr Smith then research this information for yourself. Then debate with friends, and get the accuracies out in the open. This is more media bias bullshit. Mr. Solomon was much too polite with this communist piece of shit across from him... Either one across from him.
one background system will WORK WAY BETTER!!!!
If this bill ever becomes law then it should NOT apply to those 33 States that don't do a back ground check at all. It should only apply to the 17 States that do back ground checks if what John saying is true.
the guy who has and purchased a gun does dont know what he is talking about...
What in my past criminal history could keep me from LTC in MA?
I’ve never convicted for a felony. No one has restraining order against me.
Choob Choobtastic do you now or have you ever had alcoholism or other substance issues?
Monica Jones nope not at all, i’ve had a few Mr. meaner marijuana charges never been found guilty though. Some continued without a finding and then ended.
Misdemeanor’ sorry about that one LUL
And over 20 years ago!
I'm always confused by this stuff. I can never tell if the people are just uneducated on the topic or are educated and lie and propagate false narratives to get more people to support their views. The guy in the middle is so far off on what he's saying it borders on flat out lies. Almost nothing he said is accurate.
If you have never committed a crime clean record you shoukld be able to carry are fore fathers died for this
Surt Andvettsson I am borderline communist and proud of it. I legally concealed carried in Arizona for years yet back here in good old Take-it-up-the-assachusetts, I’m not eligible for gun ownership. The reason I’m not eligible is because I got sober, were I still a daily drinker and regular faller, I’d be golden. So watch how you paint us, please.
Last I checked you did not legally have yo register your firearms in Massachusetts
No wonder why he’s no longer chief of police. He looks like he has a serious substance abuse problem.
Went to school with him, great guy