I am doing a mini-ethnography for my school project and I am doing it on Massachusetts gun owners. I need feedback from people on here because I know many of you are MA residents, you can either respond in the thread or PM me. The question I am asking is, how do you feel about being a gun owner in Massachusetts and do you believe that it is a privilege or a right to own a gun within the laws of the state. This is pretty open ended I would love to hear some of your stories and just how much you love or hate the laws. Thank you for anyone who has time to respond!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
School research
- Thread starter mordeeb
- Start date
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,487
- Likes
- 17,718
First: does one have to be agun owner to reply?
That said....It is a right, infringed to a greater or lesser degree, by the non-shooting majority through majority rule.
One should not love or hate the laws (it's a waste of time and energy), but should work to reform the laws, and educate non-shooters, so that they are, if not "converts" to our side, at least more understanding and tolerant of our rights.
Good luck
That said....It is a right, infringed to a greater or lesser degree, by the non-shooting majority through majority rule.
One should not love or hate the laws (it's a waste of time and energy), but should work to reform the laws, and educate non-shooters, so that they are, if not "converts" to our side, at least more understanding and tolerant of our rights.
Good luck
I used to live in MA, and I fled the state, twice, directly because of its draconian gun laws. Given my answer, there is an inalienable right to own a gun.
You can choose to use it or not, but thought I'd weigh in on it just in case to help you out. Best of luck with your paper.
You can choose to use it or not, but thought I'd weigh in on it just in case to help you out. Best of luck with your paper.
It sucks being a gun owner in Ma.
Knowing that my LTC can be revoked for basically anything deemed "unsuitable" is the worst part for me. All the money and time I have invested in my collection can be taken away for whatever reason they decide.
I hate that we need muzzle brakes, pinned stocks, no bayo lugs because of the AWB while the rest of the country doesn't.
I hate how I can't have a magazine over 10 rounds unless it is 16 years old.
I hate how I can't buy some new guns because they are not on the "list"
Having to mail FA-10's to the CRIMINAL History Systems Board drives me nuts.
The list goes on and on.
It IS a Right but treated as a privilege.
Last edited:
My 2 cents is that for a right protected under the second amendment, and now with out a doubt incorporated under the 14th amendment, thanks to McDonald, it's still easier for someone to get a drivers license which is a privileged, as opposed to get an unrestricted gun license. The rub is that cars kill more people nation wide then criminals and morons do with guns.
Another part of being a Mass gun owner that upsets me is how the state victimizes the victims of violent crime that use a fire arm lawfully for self defense. Many are arrested on the spot and treated like criminals. Most people who are not charged and the use of lethal force is deemed justified never see the fire arm used in the incident again. This is part of the reason this state desperately needs a castle doctrine. And not just for the gun owners, but for anyone with the stones to be their own first line of defense.
Its just insane how some people think its morally superior for a person to the victim of violent crime, instead of having to explain to a cop how a perp ended up with a new hole in his head.
Another part of being a Mass gun owner that upsets me is how the state victimizes the victims of violent crime that use a fire arm lawfully for self defense. Many are arrested on the spot and treated like criminals. Most people who are not charged and the use of lethal force is deemed justified never see the fire arm used in the incident again. This is part of the reason this state desperately needs a castle doctrine. And not just for the gun owners, but for anyone with the stones to be their own first line of defense.
Its just insane how some people think its morally superior for a person to the victim of violent crime, instead of having to explain to a cop how a perp ended up with a new hole in his head.
Last edited:
What a load of horseshit. There is one person responsible for you and that is yourself!
I'm a gun owner in Massachusetts, and I think the laws are just peachy. I don't have a license of any kind. I wouldn't qualify due to my long criminal history, which includes five felony convictions, a raft of misdemeanors, and three months in county jail. I was also deported. Twice.
The beauty part is that the state laws function primarily to keep guns out of the hands of people who would impede my ability to earn a living through theft, robbery and assault. I prefer to conduct my business in the urban areas where CLEOs flat out prohibit gun ownership, or so restrict possession as to render it meaningless. But even in the suburban and rural areas, so many people are flat out harassed by the laws that they just give up on owning a gun. Hell, in this state, people even have to keep their guns locked up at night.
Easy pickins, I tell you. I don't encourage self help, and "obviously I'm for Dukakis".
haha that's a joke! No, really. Massachusetts has a great business climate for guys like me. Peace out.
The beauty part is that the state laws function primarily to keep guns out of the hands of people who would impede my ability to earn a living through theft, robbery and assault. I prefer to conduct my business in the urban areas where CLEOs flat out prohibit gun ownership, or so restrict possession as to render it meaningless. But even in the suburban and rural areas, so many people are flat out harassed by the laws that they just give up on owning a gun. Hell, in this state, people even have to keep their guns locked up at night.
Easy pickins, I tell you. I don't encourage self help, and "obviously I'm for Dukakis".
haha that's a joke! No, really. Massachusetts has a great business climate for guys like me. Peace out.
Some of us feel that fighting for sane, practical gun laws is worth the effort. This is a fight that is only lost when you quit. I felt strongly that once Senator Kennedy died we would start gaining ground. I try to attend at least four public hearings a year, write my legislators on all pertinent bills (and I have two offices so I copy the reps there), and sponsor ten new GOAL members.
The message to legislators I preach is "We have more than enough gun laws. We need to spend our limited legislative effort and government resources on putting more police feet on the street, and providing those police with better training, equipment, and pay."
Like most veterans, I feel it is outrageous that a citizen who has volunteered to defend the nation against all enemies, and makes considerable sacrifice to do so, would then have a constitutional right abridged in such an arbitrary way - at the whim of the chief of police where you live.
I think some of the people here who encourage gun owners to leave the state because the current gun laws are inconvenient are beneath contempt. They are charlatans of the first order, who prove by their words and inactions they care more for their own ease than any principle.
The message to legislators I preach is "We have more than enough gun laws. We need to spend our limited legislative effort and government resources on putting more police feet on the street, and providing those police with better training, equipment, and pay."
Like most veterans, I feel it is outrageous that a citizen who has volunteered to defend the nation against all enemies, and makes considerable sacrifice to do so, would then have a constitutional right abridged in such an arbitrary way - at the whim of the chief of police where you live.
I think some of the people here who encourage gun owners to leave the state because the current gun laws are inconvenient are beneath contempt. They are charlatans of the first order, who prove by their words and inactions they care more for their own ease than any principle.
Last edited:
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
New here? Can I use that as a Sig line?
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Read this.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...opped-in-Manchester-gun-case?highlight=girard
You can also do a search for Girard.
fencer
NES Member
Our right to bear arms is second only to our right to argue
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,824
Don't sweat it. This is nothing. Most of us know each other in the real world so imagine your buds talking to each other. Now imagine they do it on the internets. Also, most of us are GOAL members so you will get a 2'fer here.
Are you an Anthro major? What is your focus?
Throw some hard liquor into the mix and this thread is just getting warmed up.
MA is an interesting thing. S#$%-fest seems about right when it comes to the MGL. I used to joke with people in the PRC that I come from the land of common sense, SF. I've been a gun owner most of my life, basically up until I left CA and NV and moved here to MA. I never really understood the term "free state" until moving here and having to apply for the privilege to exercise my right to bear arms.
I refuse to bring any of my family guns in from out of state. I'm going through the (most confounding) process of applying for my LTC - I just don't see the point of an LTC - you need to apply for the privilege to CCW, but open carry and unfettered ownership for non felons/convicts shouldn't require a bs process like this. AG List, special trigger pull weights for handguns, it's all BS and a product of political grandstanding that the citizens of this state fell for, hook line and sinker.
This state is in sad shape, I had no clue how good we had it back home.
I refuse to bring any of my family guns in from out of state. I'm going through the (most confounding) process of applying for my LTC - I just don't see the point of an LTC - you need to apply for the privilege to CCW, but open carry and unfettered ownership for non felons/convicts shouldn't require a bs process like this. AG List, special trigger pull weights for handguns, it's all BS and a product of political grandstanding that the citizens of this state fell for, hook line and sinker.
This state is in sad shape, I had no clue how good we had it back home.
W
wolf223
.....
Last edited by a moderator:
W
wolf223
send a private message to Turbocharged and dwarven1.
Forget about the Second Amendment or the Constitution itself.
In Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690) he argued that the individual right of self-defense (and hence the right to possess and use such tools as are suitable for self-defense) is the first law of nature, and that any person or government that attempts to inhibit this right thereby seeks to make others his slaves. He also argues that a the right to self-defense is equivalent to the right to life itself, and that no person can contract that right away to any individual or government. Both Jewish and Christian religious scholars (e.g., Rashi, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther) view self-defense not merely as a right, but as an affirmative duty. To refrain from defending one's life or the life of another innocent is to despise and disrespect the most important gift one has received, the gift of life itself.
But as a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I'm supposed to believe that "The Great and General Court", despite its indisputable record of corruption and criminality (as exemplified by the last three Speakers of the House) is a better arbiter of right and wrong than these amateurs.
Ken
In Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690) he argued that the individual right of self-defense (and hence the right to possess and use such tools as are suitable for self-defense) is the first law of nature, and that any person or government that attempts to inhibit this right thereby seeks to make others his slaves. He also argues that a the right to self-defense is equivalent to the right to life itself, and that no person can contract that right away to any individual or government. Both Jewish and Christian religious scholars (e.g., Rashi, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther) view self-defense not merely as a right, but as an affirmative duty. To refrain from defending one's life or the life of another innocent is to despise and disrespect the most important gift one has received, the gift of life itself.
But as a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I'm supposed to believe that "The Great and General Court", despite its indisputable record of corruption and criminality (as exemplified by the last three Speakers of the House) is a better arbiter of right and wrong than these amateurs.
Ken
One of the top posts of 2010!
"Gentlemen - you can't fight here, this is the War Room!"
Similar threads
