How did Connecticut & Massachusetts become so anti firearm?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I grew up in Springfield in the 1960s, and although we didn't have any real guns in the house, I had plenty of toy guns and knew a good number of gun owners. Went to college in Boston (GO SOX!) and came to realize how many colleges and universities the state had. At the time, Boston alone had over 130 colleges and universities. From that, I have two reasons why I believe MA became so anti-gun:
1. those rat-bastard Kennedys...each and every one.
2. too many elitist graduates of those fine institutes of education stayed in Boston, and the rest of the state, and turned it into the liberal hell it has become.
 
Tilos said:
Understand that the firearms industry originated/prospered in the CT. River Valley because of water power, not the beliefs of the people living there.
Click to expand...

Well, that’s a great concept and most likely why the firearms industry was concentrated in this region originally, with a few exceptions (Remington in Ilion, New York comes to mind). It would have to likely have started or been most concentrated in one of the 13 original colonies, and the more southern colonies and then states were out, as they subsisted on more of a plantation economy. Indeed, this lack of firearms factories in the South was detrimental to the survival of the Confederacy in the Civil War.

And so, I guess the Connecticut River Valley having water power and being close to and having access to a major port like NYC explains why it was when it was. Water power and transportation via the Connecticut River.

However, I wonder if, independent of thinking of water power and transportation, if the firearms industry had formed in Richmond,Virginia or Atlanta, Georgia, for example, if it still would be prosperous, at least hanging on by a thread, or if local sentiment would have lead to a slow or rapid demise?
 
wiscoaster said:
This is an easy one to answer, but it's going to get a lot of flak: both states have lots of very wealthy and educated people. Very wealthy and educated / (aka "intellectual") people generally don't like to share their earned or bought or inherited privileges, social, economic, political or otherwise, with the (as perceived by them) "lesser" middle and blue classes. Therefore they don't give a rip about maintaining the Constitutional rights of those "lesser" classes. Elites have rights; others have privileges the elites condescend to allow them. Gun "rights" is only one small piece of this pie.
Click to expand...

This, too, may be why the local population doesn’t care one whit about the firearms industry in the Connecticut River Valley. A NIMB mentality. It doesn’t benefit the vast majority of the wealthy in the region, the factory itself is probably regarded as a scar upon the landscape, and not understanding firearms, and their usefulness, they would just as soon have them all removed from the planet. As I stated in a previous post, what these wealthy elites fail to realize is that if it were not for the firearm, the best case scenario they could hope for today is that they at least have a meager savings after being British subjects and being taxed by the British monarchy, we all being British subjects.

Also, you state that the wealthy/elite don’t like to share their wealth or privileges. That’s why I find it rather confounding that ANY individual with at least some wealth can be affiliated or belong to a certain party, it being alphabetically first relative to the other major party. I’m not getting political, as we try not to do so in this forum, but that party engages in the redistribution of wealth, and so the wealthy would be paying more in taxes and giving up more of their wealth, which is not to their benefit. An oxymoron. Unless, of course, that individual is one of the last coy ones who benefits from increased spending due to increased taxation. Being in the right place at the right time.

But, relating this again to firearms. I cannot believe that even the modestly wealthy would want to give up firearms or be anti 2 A, as you never know when you might need to defend yourselves. By these modestly wealthy, I’m referring to the bulk of the wealthy and elite in this country, a large proportion who reside in Connecticut, Massachusetts,NYC…. Maybe they had successful parents, led a sheltered existence, have a few houses, an impressive stock portfolio, drive a fancy car, attended Ivy League institutions. And while at these institutions, it was ingrained in their psyche that the police are “rhe good guys”, there to protect you at a moments notice. Most cops are the good guys, with the exception of a few bad apples. But what this elite class fails to realize is that in the case of defending oneself, seconds matter, and even having a police barracks just around the corner may not be enough in an impromptu situation.

Lastly, for the very wealthy and/or elite te to be anti firearm and not want to support the firearms industry in the Connecticut River Valley is extremely hypocritical. I get it that the firearms industry in that area needed help generations ago, and this current crop of politicians is just pouring more salt in the wound, causing Smith & Wesson to relocate to Tennessee. But, I’m sure George Soros employs an armed bodyguard. I’m quite sure the Secret Service is armed and President Biden would feel quite uncomfortable if they were not.

Just some random thoughts…
 
wiscoaster said:
This is an easy one to answer, but it's going to get a lot of flak: both states have lots of very wealthy and educated people. Very wealthy and educated / (aka "intellectual") people generally don't like to share their earned or bought or inherited privileges, social, economic, political or otherwise, with the (as perceived by them) "lesser" middle and blue classes. Therefore they don't give a rip about maintaining the Constitutional rights of those "lesser" classes. Elites have rights; others have privileges the elites condescend to allow them. Gun "rights" is only one small piece of this pie.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of truth to this. We like to think that there's an urban-rural divide in this country, but in reality it's a class divide. (It's like a sandwich -- the elites and the very bottom trend liberal -- and live in cities -- while those in the middle trend conservative.)

Make no mistake -- both the elites and the very bottom own plenty of guns, but, for various reasons, they don't believe that any restrictions on guns will apply to them. The very bottom believe that they can ignore the law, while the elites believe that they can bend the law. Therefore they support restrictions that they believe will apply to someone else.
 
Perhaps a better way to prevent, or at least diminish the anti's charge toward banning ownership of firearms is to reform our representatives according to total area and not population.
Click to expand...
I have often thought the people could have control of their government if the electors of the electoral college were obligated to vote in support of the constituents of that district. I.E. eliminate the winning party takes all of the the electoral vote. Take this concept to its logical distribution and apply it to state politics as well allowing the counties to support their voters and not the party in power.
The idea of "all politics is local" was tossed out with the 17th amendment.

BTW, would someome please point out to me where our house of representatives became limited
The number of voting representatives in the House is fixed by law at no more than 435, proportionally representing the population of the 50 states.
Click to expand...
I ask this because I can find NO constitutional amendment changes Article 2: " The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;".
Think about it: If it remained 1/30k as per the constitution, the house should have at least 11,115 members (333,453,090/30,000 = 11,115.1). Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to bribe the majority of 11,115 people vs. the majority of 435?
The founders were far wiser that they are generally given credit.
(JMHO, YMMV, does not include tax, title, license, dealer prep or options. Side effects may include headache, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, snsitivity to light, weight loss, loss of appetite, paranoia, halucinations, delusions of grandeur, itching, rash or the sudden urge to lash out irrationally)
 
Poper said:
Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to bribe the majority of 11,115 people vs. the majority of 435?
Click to expand...
Be careful what you wish for. Besides being totally unworkable, a House of Representatives with 11,115 members would be far more liberal than what we have now. (The cities would run everything.) The limit of 435 works to magnify the influence of rural states and areas.
 
unclenunzie said:
Born in NYC - I was raised without exposure to firearms - they simply were not a thing the vast, vast majority of people ever saw outside of the local beat cop - a trusted person in all cases. My mother had an uncle who had at least one hunting rifle, I saw it at their house when I was a kid in the '60s visiting them.
Click to expand...

Similar, my Uncle was an NYPD Captain and when he came to visit he would unload his issued revolver and give it to me to go out an play "Cops n' Robbers." Other kids were real envious.
Never saw another until I was issued a 45 as my TO weapon carrying a PRC 10 radio for the Marines.
 
Lots of civilized and thought out commentary in this thread. I agree with a good deal of what has been said. My thoughts about the matter go back to the early 1960 when the beginnings of our cultural change picked up speed for a variety of reasons mentioned in other posts.

I'm 78 years old and have paid a bit of attention: The late 50's and early 60's hippies and revolutionaries began to slowly blend in and began the now 60 year old invasion of public education, elected and appointed government, big corporations, financial institutions, entertainment/music, and even our churches. They have been resourceful and dedicated and spawned several generations of adherents. Along with that, came some violent acts that initiated some knee jerk reactions based in emotionalism. Couple that with the huge change in media accessibility and rise of the internet and the creation of more densely population areas due to the nearly doubling of our population since 1960. I also learned from my work over the last 60 years in the public sector as a police officer, elected and appointed critter, and in business, people are more willing to believe a lie than the truth.

Just my 2 cents.
 
I lived in Vermont 1956-1959, the old Vermont/New England values of hard work, thrift, industry, don't expect others to solve your problem since you probably brought them on yourself. Then all sorts of immigrants moved from the cities and high tax states moved in, brought their values with them. Same thing with California-remember Reagan came from California.
 
LiberalVet said:
I believe some of the divide happened when gun ownership evolved past hunting and sporting and home defense to “Woo hoo, look at me! I’m Rambo with my tacticool AR and high-cap mags”

The NRA’s transition from representing hunters and sportsmen to being a patently corrupt gun manufacturer lobby has also turned public opinion. Their positions and statements like all teachers should be armed rightly marginalized gun owners in the minds of rational people.
Click to expand...
Everything about this post is not only wrong but wrong-headed and part of what is wrong with the perception of guns in America.

What's wrong with "tacticool AR's" and "high cap mags"?

The problem with the NRA is that it has to exist in its present form at all. It 'should' be an organization to promote safe firearms' ownership and use. We shouldn't have to have a full time lobby to protects rights that are already guaranteed by the Constitution. Same for manufacturers. They're 100% regulated by the federal government, yet that same gov't once tried to bankrupt the entire industry with frivolous lawsuits. If you think the NRA is just a lobby for the manufacturers, you must get your news from CNN.
 
The enemy has succeeded in their divided & conquer tactics. Hunters dont care if we lose our auto rifles. The enemy writes bills that take advantage of this fact. As long as Bubba's squirrel gun isnt getting confiscated, he dosent care. This eliminates the resources that protected his "right to hunt" because he thinks the 2nd amendment is there for deer season. It is not. I blame idiot gun club rednecks that do not acommodate tactical folks.
 
CraigC said:
Everything about this post is not only wrong but wrong-headed and part of what is wrong with the perception of guns in America.

What's wrong with "tacticool AR's" and "high cap mags? .
Click to expand...


Dude, you can’t be serious. Tacticool ARs with high cap mags have been used in the most deadly and devastating mass shootings. That is why the non-shooting public is AFRAID of them. And in my hunting career I’ve never gotten a 24th shot at my game. Or a 14th. Or even a 4th, so a 10 round mag is still more than twice I’ll ever need. Hell, I’d get fined for having more than 3 shells in my shotty during duck and goose season. So there is no legitimate hunting purpose to high cap mags. They only exist for fun and potential combat.

Some think the 2A protects private gun ownership for potential combat with a tyrannical government. Others, many many others are afraid of people that believe, articulate and open carry with body armor to prove the point. I’m just making this observation in response to the OP. Can you see any merit to this perspective?
 
''Dude, you can’t be serious. Tacticool ARs with high cap mags have been used in the most deadly and devastating mass shootings.
So have and more so, pistols. And what about that fellow who retrieved his so-called ''tacticool AR'' and ended the (school or church?) shooting? Jumped in someone else's vehicle and chased the perp down.A young girl defended her house with a...yup! ? On & on.
That is why the non-shooting public is AFRAID of them.
I am NOT responsible for someone else's fears. Are we discussing the #1 most popular style centerfire long gun? Million's in ownership, some say 4X more then in the military? Albeit the military version is select fire.
And in my hunting career I’ve never gotten a 24th shot at my game. Or a 14th. Or even a 4th, ... Well, I have, multiple groundhogs, pigs for example. Others will cite coyote hunts and prairie dogs.
...so a 10 round mag is still more than twice I’ll ever need. Well that's great for you! Sounds like that NY governor to me, ''no one needs ten rounds to kill a Deee-ah''

H**l, I’d get fined for having more than 3 shells in my shotty during duck and goose season.
But two, three shotguns are legal if you need more immediate shots and do not want fined. You forgot the further restriction of special shot within the shotshell.

Not that the 2A has ANYTHING to do with hunting.

So there is no legitimate hunting purpose to high cap mags. They only exist for fun and potential combat."
Says you for you. It's an illogical thinking pattern; I can give good examples for example, no ketchup is needed nor pickles for my cheeseburger. Cite as my ''evidence'' fats or salt content. And summarily illogically conclude, no one else needs it either. All the while, millions of AMERICANS go right on eating that or other variations of a burger. Next? Oh no! Grilling hurtz the ozone layyyaaa....


Rant off


Again, SaysYFY. Yes they do, and, for ALL lawful purposes. Lets see, when is the last time I shot a High Power Match with an EEvil tacticool rifle...1st round of fire... Rapid fire TEN rounds, mag swap, etc. ....

Ever got into just collecting but not actually shooting?
 
BLACKHAWKNJ said:
I lived in Vermont 1956-1959, the old Vermont/New England values of hard work, thrift, industry, don't expect others to solve your problem since you probably brought them on yourself. Then all sorts of immigrants moved from the cities and high tax states moved in, brought their values with them. Same thing with California-remember Reagan came from Californi[/QUOTE




Post WW2 Connecticut's industry flurished bringing jobs and an influx of workers from all over especially mid atlantic states. The industries gradually moved and the workers went on welfare and the cities deteriorated. Now it's run by Democrats elected by "who's going to give me the most stuff" voters. Bridgeport, once the largest city in the state, had a mayor(Jasper McLevy) from 1933-1957 who was a Socialist as was his city council. I'm a life long Ct resident and plan on moving to a more retirement and gun friendly state.
Click to expand...
 
LiberalVet said:
Dude, you can’t be serious. Tacticool ARs with high cap mags have been used in the most deadly and devastating mass shootings. That is why the non-shooting public is AFRAID of them. And in my hunting career I’ve never gotten a 24th shot at my game. Or a 14th. Or even a 4th, so a 10 round mag is still more than twice I’ll ever need. Hell, I’d get fined for having more than 3 shells in my shotty during duck and goose season. So there is no legitimate hunting purpose to high cap mags. They only exist for fun and potential combat.
Click to expand...
I remember being eight years old and alone in an apartment that overlooked central Los Angeles as the 1965 riots rolled closer and closer.
I would have given almost anything to have one of those "tacticool" guns and a bunch of big magazines... .
 
LiberalVet said:
Dude, you can’t be serious. Tacticool ARs with high cap mags have been used in the most deadly and devastating mass shootings. That is why the non-shooting public is AFRAID of them. And in my hunting career I’ve never gotten a 24th shot at my game. Or a 14th. Or even a 4th, so a 10 round mag is still more than twice I’ll ever need. Hell, I’d get fined for having more than 3 shells in my shotty during duck and goose season. So there is no legitimate hunting purpose to high cap mags. They only exist for fun and potential combat.

Some think the 2A protects private gun ownership for potential combat with a tyrannical government. Others, many many others are afraid of people that believe, articulate and open carry with body armor to prove the point. I’m just making this observation in response to the OP. Can you see any merit to this perspective?
Click to expand...

Dude. You sure you came to the right place?
 
rust collector said:
My theory is that as those states' populations moved into larger cities, the citizens became more dependent on others for food, services and other essentials. They also became more fearful and willing to rely on government for protection from the predation that seems more common when people live together in large numbers. The herd mentality becomes stronger, and leaders offer "solutions" that point public opinion in the desired direction. When those solutions don't work or work out poorly, the leaders must find scapegoats and funding, so industries generally find themselves in the spotlight. The "heavier" they are, the less likely they are to move, the owners and managers must be paid more, and labor unions become an increasingly vocal component. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but our society devours its heroes and prime movers.
Click to expand...

You sound like me. I've always said "density breeds liberalism," as people herded together relying on services outside of their own two hands become dependent, it may not be overnight but it happens to the best of those living in big cities. The founding fathers knew this, and gave us a Republic, to which Benjamin Franklin said after leaving the Constitutional Convention, "...if we can keep it."

Those words of Benjamin Franklin have been pounding in my head the past 15 years.

CherokeeGunslinger said:
Spot on.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Anti-firearm is a product of government control.

Government control is easier and more pervasive under the following conditions:

When the major state (or country) is either geographically small or singularly controlled by an overriding state (national) government.

AND

When relatively large population centers dominate the state/nation.

Population centers tend to become politically liberal for a variety of reasons. And the large the population centers, the more politically liberal they become.

The remaining areas of a state/nation, being far more rural, tend to be more conservative politically. However, even though the rural population may outnumber the urban population by a significant factor, the mere fact that they are widely scattered across the remaining state/nation means they tend to be less organized as a whole and therefore wield less political clout overall.

State/national governments reside in the larger population centers. This lends them a unity that the rural areas tend to lack. Being inherently liberal means these governments tend to adopt liberal policies, and gun control is one of these.

There are other factors which come into play, of course, and everything is ultimately a balance based on the specific unique circumstances of any given state/nation.

But geographical size and population distribution dominate these other factors.

If the United States itself were not so geographically large and diverse (socially and politically), we would have long ago established gun control measures like many other far more restrictive nations have. The very fact that we have so many states with so much diversity in sociopolitical aspects has pretty much been the reason why it's not happened nationally thus far.
 
I think you’re wading off into dangerous waters when you try to extrapolate gun ownership from religious preference. That just perpetuates prejudices where there doesn’t need to be any. I don’t like being described as a knuckle dragging’ brush ape any more than some guys like being called a commie gun-hating Jew. Those kinds of conversations are not productive. What is productive is changing the narrative about gun owners—they happen to be your family, your co-worker, church member—your friend.
Guns are scary if you’re not familiar with them. Even when you are familiar with guns, they command tremendous respect. So non-gun owners need to be introduced to guns and their owners in a non-confrontational way. Every time I hear that “Cold dead fingers. . .” stuff, it sends a cold hand down my spine ‘cause I know it turns off a lot more people than it turns on.
 
Early New Englanders (Connecticut & Massachusetts) left for the New World fir religious freedom. Many were Puritans and Quakers. However, they didn’t hesitate to brandish a firearm to defend their liberty.

How does one know this? It’s why we exist today as a country.

Thinking in reverse, loss of gun rights could very well lead to the demise of this country, and it might very well begin in areas that don’t respect the Second Amendment, such as Connecticut and Massachusetts.

I think our forefathers would be extremely disappointed in the direction this country has gone.
 
DoubleMag said:
''Dude, you can’t be serious. Tacticool ARs with high cap mags have been used in the most deadly and devastating mass shootings.
So have and more so, pistols. And what about that fellow who retrieved his so-called ''tacticool AR'' and ended the (school or church?) shooting? Jumped in someone else's vehicle and chased the perp down.A young girl defended her house with a...yup! ? On & on.
That is why the non-shooting public is AFRAID of them.
I am NOT responsible for someone else's fears. Are we discussing the #1 most popular style centerfire long gun? Million's in ownership, some say 4X more then in the military? Albeit the military version is select fire.
And in my hunting career I’ve never gotten a 24th shot at my game. Or a 14th. Or even a 4th, ... Well, I have, multiple groundhogs, pigs for example. Others will cite coyote hunts and prairie dogs.
...so a 10 round mag is still more than twice I’ll ever need. Well that's great for you! Sounds like that NY governor to me, ''no one needs ten rounds to kill a Deee-ah''

H**l, I’d get fined for having more than 3 shells in my shotty during duck and goose season.
But two, three shotguns are legal if you need more immediate shots and do not want fined. You forgot the further restriction of special shot within the shotshell.

Not that the 2A has ANYTHING to do with hunting.

So there is no legitimate hunting purpose to high cap mags. They only exist for fun and potential combat."
Says you for you. It's an illogical thinking pattern; I can give good examples for example, no ketchup is needed nor pickles for my cheeseburger. Cite as my ''evidence'' fats or salt content. And summarily illogically conclude, no one else needs it either. All the while, millions of AMERICANS go right on eating that or other variations of a burger. Next? Oh no! Grilling hurtz the ozone layyyaaa....


Rant off


Again, SaysYFY. Yes they do, and, for ALL lawful purposes. Lets see, when is the last time I shot a High Power Match with an EEvil tacticool rifle...1st round of fire... Rapid fire TEN rounds, mag swap, etc. ....

Ever got into just collecting but not actually shooting?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hso
  • Locked
S&W Relocation
Replies
0
Views
2K
hso
hso
Superlite27
  • Locked
Endorsements by non-firearm companies.
Replies
0
Views
296
Superlite27
Superlite27
N
  • Locked
Interesting gun manufacturers information... LOOK!
Replies
3
Views
1K
kenehsr
K
Driftwood Johnson
  • Locked
How Old is your Oldest Revolver?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
163
Views
11K
Texas10mm
Texas10mm
M
  • Locked
When did New Jersey become so anti-gun ? The background
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
JohnBT
J
Back
Top