People who now want a gun but can't get them thanks to our laws

I don't think it's so much "Gun owners" as people in general.
You think that guy with the $10,000 shotgun has an open mind about things?
I bet he knows it all, is set in his ways and won't even consider a discussion on a topic unless it benefits something he participates in.
The "Elitists" firearm owner! LOL

I would rather have a conversation with the guy that shoots the $200.00 beat up Remington 870 than that know it all clown!
The best is when the guy with Remy wipes the field of those types of Perazzi guys.
They get all butt hurt and try to figure out why they suck so bad.
All the while dressed like Olympic gold medalist! [rofl]

A lot of people with expensive material things somehow think it translates into all knowing knowledge on a subject![rofl2]
 
Last edited:
True that. We seem to always have the talkers run the facilities. Look at state politics. I would never have one of those people in my home. Be afraid their crazy/evil would spread like a virus to my children
 
That's typical of gun clubs in MA, they are various cliques/factions that only care about their part of the sport.

^ This is why I think Pay-as-you-go ranges are becoming more popular.

In fact, I'd like to see a Shooting Range where the separate lanes become activated when you pump a few quarters into a vending slot...

1586271957488.png

And you reserve 'next spot' on the lane with a quarter...

1586272142548.png
 
^ This is why I think Pay-as-you-go ranges are becoming more popular.

In fact, I'd like to see a Shooting Range where the separate lanes become activated when you pump a few quarters into a vending slot...

View attachment 345708

And you reserve 'next spot' on the lane with a quarter...

View attachment 345709

It's a little more in depth than that.

People in general need to understand that the elitists who make the laws are not in the least concerned with anyone but thier own little clique of people.......the people who write the checks to their campaign funds, the people who attend their fund raisers, the people who they hob knob with on a regular basis........not the average working joe, not anyone from an opposing clique, and certainly not from the free shit army people whom they garner so much power from.....OR GUN OWNERS in general.
If you think for one minute that anything at the state level is on the level......you are a retard of the highest order. ( not meaning you particularly....but anyone in general.
The legislature needs to be attritted.......by any means necessary.......by extreme force if necessary. THAT is exactly why the 2A was put in place......to counter this very type of dictatorial rule over people. The politicians of Massachusetts have established a standing army of state police that enforce their unconstitutional laws and that same mindset trickles down to the municipal police chiefs and their officers.

Unless and until bodies start being stacked......nothing will change.
 
It's a little more in depth than that.
Of course. But it shouldn't be...

My point was going to the range and training should be 'as easy' and simple as 'coins in a slot'...
 
I don't think it's so much "Gun owners" as people in general.
You think that guy with the $10,000 shotgun has an open mind about things?
I bet he knows it all, is set in his ways and won't even consider a discussion on a topic unless it benefits something he participates in.
The "Elitists" firearm owner! LOL
. . .

Somehow a lot of people with expensive material things somehow think it translates into all knowing knowledge on a subject![rofl2]
You are right. He was always the know it all and did what he wanted including some things that violated both state and federal laws wrt club property (maintaining ponds). He was a real piece of work. After he tried to start the argument about the MA gun law changes in 1998, I went home and wrote my letter of resignation from the BOD and never returned to the property as a member. His expertise on the gun law he claimed was derived from having lunch with the clerk of court each week . . . not kidding, that is what he told all of us. He said that the law wouldn't affect any of us, but might affect our grandchildren! Thankfully, he's gone now so that nobody has to deal with him anymore . . . but I'm sure that he's trying to tell the devil how to run Hell his way now,.
 
I think stuff like the S&W M&P EZ series of pistols is geared exactly towards the sort of person you're talking about. Meant to be non-intimidating and easy to operate so anyone can use them.
It's funny you mentioned that, as I've been selling a lot of EZ 380 guns to people who "Need to gun to protect themselves " for home or personal defense. They also admit they have NEVER owned a gun before, until now. I never ask them if they were antis, but they seem amazed they are required to complete a 4473 and a Background Check in order to buy the gun. (this tells me they may have been drinking the Koolaide) They aso opt for a Revolver (I direct them to a revolver as it's easier to check if it's loaded, and less complicated)
 
The whole country has written MA off, including lots of people on this board( true gun culture people) who have smartly voted with their feet and moved out of MA directly because of the harassing gun laws.
If you want to stand and bang your head against a brick wall for the rest of your life, be my guest. I'll be on my range out back having the time of my life. I don't have time to contend with MA foolish gun laws or the cops that so willingly enforce them.
OK, so you're not really reading my posts are you, or you'd know why this doesn't make sense.
OK, so you're not really reading my posts are you, or you'd know why this doesn't make sense.
Yes, I am reading your posts. ......
OK, less subtle this time. Not banging head, I moved to NH for my personal freedom. But I still fight for my home. I don't quite just because it's difficult. I keep trying, adjusting tactics as I go.
 
OK, less subtle this time. Not banging head, I moved to NH for my personal freedom. But I still fight for my home. I don't quite just because it's difficult. I keep trying, adjusting tactics as I go.

You have no continuity of conversation. You appear to be just another troll.
 
You have no continuity of conversation. You appear to be just another troll.
It's called english. When you make a comment that follows a specific quote, it is clear that the comment pertains to the quote. Why else would there be a quote?

Try putting it all together. Mind the commas and other punctuation.

But to summarize. I work and fight to make things better, to a point. And I alone get to decide where that line is for me. You say it's a lost cause so we shouldn't bother, and F the rest of the world. OK, that's you, but I don't quit so easily.

ETA: But I am done with this.
 
It's called english. When you make a comment that follows a specific quote, it is clear that the comment pertains to the quote. Why else would there be a quote?

Try putting it all together. Mind the commas and other punctuation.

But to summarize. I work and fight to make things better, to a point. And I alone get to decide where that line is for me. You say it's a lost cause so we shouldn't bother, and F the rest of the world. OK, that's you, but I don't quit so easily.

ETA: But I am done with this.

Ok good.
 
Loganville, Georgia
Brother in law 1 (wifes brother) and his wife, who are liberals and staunch supporters of gun control, are now in full on panic mode for fear of a societal breakdown and their house being broken into. They live in a nice neighborhood from what I'm told. Full on panic mode.

Bother in law 1 has been pestering Brother in law 2 (wifes sisters husband) to borrow a handgun.

Brother in law 2 caves in after a week and a half of phone calls and lends them his M&P 15-22. They get the fun ones down there with the larger mags.

B.I.L. 2 shows B.I.L 1 and wife how to use it, and tells them "Well, I used up all the .22 ammo I had last week, so you'll have to pick up a box of 50. Its only like 5 or 6 bucks."

B.I.L. 1 and panicky wife are now appalled that they have to go and purchase a box of ammo. and decide that instead if the situation requires they'll "just point it and yell loudly like on t.v. and the movies." Keep in mind that indoor raange/ dealer local to them (Trading places, Monroe Georgia) has used 5 and 6 shot .38 snubs for $150-$200.

B.I.L 2 now greatly regrets his decision.

On a phone call with B.I.L. 2, we agree that this can not end well. I emphasize to B.I.L. 2 "Listen, Kenny's half retarded, and I can see one of several outcomes. He gets ammo and shoot himself in the foot because he's one half of a whole idiot. He gets ammo and shoots up the inside of his house cause he got spooked. He gets ammo and now shoots the mailman because they're all hopped up on the fear and everyones now out to get them. He gets himself shot because he pointed an empty .22 rifle at someone whos packing heat. He gets stomped by someone not packing heat. Your rifle gets stolen out of the car because now they feel empowered toting around an empty rifle, but leave it in plain view of the front seat while they go in grocery shopping, or you get it back and its ruined because the animals got a hold of it."

B.I.L. 2 now wants his rifle back. Told him to wait a day and then call with some made up fed or state reg/ law saying he can't legally loan them anything because its registered to him and they're not licensed.

If you live, or have relatives in or around Loganville, keep an eye out in the local paper for a headline that might read " Local man shoots up own house"
 
^ That pretty much sums up most of the people looking to get something now. The ones who are in panic mode and want a quick purchase for protection. Screw them. I feel bad for the ones who have been waiting to become legal age to get a rifle or pistol and now they can't purchase their first of probably many until things change. They're the ones that are going to actually put the time in to learn to shoot and be safe. I'm sure most of us here have ample toys/supplies and no real NEED for a purchase. (that doesn't stop the want though) 😁 There's no such thing as too much.
 
BTW, it seems some will never learn that the First and Second Amendments were written as the first and second ones as our forefathers understood that they were the FOUNDATION of a FREE society. They weren't written as afterthoughts.

While I agree with your sentiment, the logic doesn’t hold up.

Why is the third amendment where it is? Is it more important than privacy rights, or trial rights, or freedom from double jeopardy?
 
While I agree with your sentiment, the logic doesn’t hold up.

Why is the third amendment where it is? Is it more important than privacy rights, or trial rights, or freedom from double jeopardy?

At the time I guess it was to them.
Me, I don't view them in an order or best to meh, I see them as 10 ( yes I am talking about the first 10 written ) pillars, if one falls the rest follow.
 
Not by law.

I was super lame about getting my LTC in Waltham, so my safety certificate was like five years old when I applied.

Waltham didn’t blink.

Waltham has a history of good licensing officers.

Loganville, Georgia
Brother in law 1 (wifes brother) and his wife, who are liberals and staunch supporters of gun control, are now in full on panic mode for fear of a societal breakdown and their house being broken into. They live in a nice neighborhood from what I'm told. Full on panic mode.

<snip>

New firearms owners who support firearms rights is great. New firearms owners who have no training and no basic sense of gun safety is a situation where, as your post illustrates, a whole lot can go wrong.
 
B.I.L. 2 now wants his rifle back. Told him to wait a day and then call with some made up fed or state reg/ law saying he can't legally loan them anything because its registered to him and they're not licensed.
Nothing made up. There's a reference earlier in this thread - I forget if it's GCA or FOPA or just ATF regs because I haven't had my coffee yet - loans of firearms must be for "sporting purposes." That is, you cannot loan a firearm for the purpose of self defense.
 
Nothing made up. There's a reference earlier in this thread - I forget if it's GCA or FOPA or just ATF regs because I haven't had my coffee yet - loans of firearms must be for "sporting purposes." That is, you cannot loan a firearm for the purpose of self defense.

Outstanding,I'll find that and text it to him.
B.I.L. 1 likes to argue until he gets his way, B.I.L. 2 is nice to a fault and borderline pushover.
 
Nothing made up. There's a reference earlier in this thread - I forget if it's GCA or FOPA or just ATF regs because I haven't had my coffee yet - loans of firearms must be for "sporting purposes." That is, you cannot loan a firearm for the purpose of self defense.

Federal law says:
Pursuant to 18 USC 922(a)(5), it is unlawful for “for any person…to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person…who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in…the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to…(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;”

I understand this to mean that you can lend your gun to another person who does not reside in your state for temporary user for lawful sporting purposes, otherwise you cannot lend your gun to another person who does not reside in your state.

This doesn't apply to TrashcanDan's brother-in-laws. His brother-in-laws both live in Georgia.

so - the part of the federal law that applies from above, (not quoted here), is that the recipient of the firearm must not be a prohibited person.

And Georgia law says that you can do a private transfer without any paperwork or permits so long as the recipient isn't a prohibited person.

What his BIL2 did was perfectly legal - stupid, but legal. And it's stupid because as TrashcanDan said in his post - Kenny's a moron and there are too many ways for a scared uneducated gun owner to get themselves in more trouble than they can handle.
 
Federal law says:
Pursuant to 18 USC 922(a)(5), it is unlawful for “for any person…to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person…who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in…the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to…(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;”

I understand this to mean that you can lend your gun to another person who does not reside in your state for temporary user for lawful sporting purposes, otherwise you cannot lend your gun to another person who does not reside in your state.

This doesn't apply to TrashcanDan's brother-in-laws. His brother-in-laws both live in Georgia.

so - the part of the federal law that applies from above, (not quoted here), is that the recipient of the firearm must not be a prohibited person.

And Georgia law says that you can do a private transfer without any paperwork or permits so long as the recipient isn't a prohibited person.

What his BIL2 did was perfectly legal - stupid, but legal. And it's stupid because as TrashcanDan said in his post - Kenny's a moron and there are too many ways for a scared uneducated gun owner to get themselves in more trouble than they can handle.
Thank you for the reference and the correction. I'll remember that for the future.
 
B.I.L. 2 now wants his rifle back. Told him to wait a day and then call with some made up fed or state reg/ law saying he can't legally loan them anything because its registered to him and they're not licensed.

Why not take the easier route?

Have BIL2 call BIL1 and say, "I just bought some .22 ammo and want to come over and show you this slick way of loading it..."
BIL1 says "Hell Yeah, get over here now!"
BIL2 shows up and says to BIL1 "Hand me the rifle so I can show y'all"
BIL1 hands BIL2 the rifle.
BIL2 turns around and walks away, without the screen door hitting him in the ass...
 
While I agree with your sentiment, the logic doesn’t hold up.

Why is the third amendment where it is? Is it more important than privacy rights, or trial rights, or freedom from double jeopardy?

If you want to see the gears turning in someones head, tell them you belong to a movement that is campaigning to repeal the 3rd Amendment :D
 
While I agree with your sentiment, the logic doesn’t hold up.

Why is the third amendment where it is? Is it more important than privacy rights, or trial rights, or freedom from double jeopardy?
The British took homes and forced them to house British Soldiers. When they wrote the Bill of Rights this was a big issue of that era.

So it actually does make sense. They take the right of free speech to tell the Brits to get the eff out of their houses. Then take out their lawfully owned firearms per the 2nd. And then enforce the 3rd with 1 and 2.
 
The British took homes and forced them to house British Soldiers. When they wrote the Bill of Rights this was a big issue of that era.

So it actually does make sense. They take the right of free speech to tell the Brits to get the eff out of their houses. Then take out their lawfully owned firearms per the 2nd. And then enforce the 3rd with 1 and 2.
I always thought this was much ado about nothing, until I saw the series Turn, about Washington's spy network. It does an appallingly good job of depicting the quartering of British soldiers with colonists. Holy shit! It outraged me more than you'd think. I'm a firm 3A supporter these days.
 
Last edited:
I always thought this was much ado about nothing, until I saw the series Turn, about Washington's spy network. It does an appalingly good job of depeicting the quartering of British soliders with colonists. Holy shit! It outgraged me more than you'd think. I'm a firm 3A supporter these days.

Sounds like an interesting watch. Added to the list - thanks.
 
To be fair, a lot of the Quartering Act is oversold in US history books.

Regs required the British to exhaust every other quartering option, including warehouses and other shops, for sheltering their troops before they turned to the inhabitants. And they usually offered rent first, for voluntary quartering, which was usually all they needed to do; they almost never forced troops on the locals if they could possibly find another option, including putting their troops in tents for months on end (like they did here in Boston, even though Gage had the legal right to quarter them on the population). The Army was well aware that it was a bad idea to force locals to house soldiers, and wise leaders tried to avoid it.

This is similar to the impressment of US sailors "leading to" the War of 1812. Our history books are very one-sided about that issue, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom