How did Connecticut & Massachusetts become so anti firearm?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by orpington, Oct 8, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Insignificant bill

    Insignificant bill Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    610
    Seems to me that over the decades citizens have been convinced by false propaganda that guns are the problem not the criminals misusing them. Since guns are are not the problem pushing more gun control will never provide the results these citizens expect. Leading to more citizens being against gun ownership. They don't realize the governments intent is to rule over us because we don't learn from history.
     
  2. ClaymoreAKM

    ClaymoreAKM Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2017
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon - SC
    Communism, and the indoctrination of youth through the Public School System
     
  3. Sniper66

    Sniper66 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,016
    Location:
    NE Kansas
    Lots of thoughtful responses here. The rise of anti-gun fever always increases in populated areas and university towns. The desire to live safely is driven by fear and the easy acceptance of the belief that government can and therefore must provide that safety. The left always makes that promise. Most of us at THR believe in individual sovereignty and, with it, the responsibility to defend ourselves, our families and our property. Those who inflame fear are driven by a lust for power which is cleverly hidden by the offer of safety.
     
  4. unclenunzie
    • Contributing Member

    unclenunzie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    Texas.
    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. These things were never talked about either negatively or positively. The idea of self or family protection was fully invested in the general notion that the police were there to be called in an emergency. And locked doors and windows all the time - not out of fear, but out of prudence. Most people never had real emergencies that required calling police, and the idea of having a gun for that purpose would be seen as strange. Really strange. The only person I ever met who had a handgun (and was able to carry it) was a friend of a friend's father who was a jeweler. Again I was real young at the time, but now I expect then he was able to get a license based on carrying diamonds, gold, cash, etc.

    The other part of self or family protection was the lesson every kid learned from any adult or even older kids - learn your neighborhood and stay away from the bad places. As a kid that's what I did, what every kid did except the ones who got in trouble.

    The negative attitude towards firearms in general comes directly from fear of being shot or robbed - because only cops (the good guys) should have them because they are here to protect you. And because always anyone who is not a cop who has one is a dangerous criminal who lives in the bad places we were taught as children to avoid. BTW knives also fell into this category. Only bad people carried knives, except the boy scouts.

    This kind of thinking stays unchanged because most people go to work, come home, and never have any sort of trouble along the way. NY, NJ,CT are known as the tri-state area, and though there are minor differences in attitudes towards guns, anti gun dominates in large population centers, suburbia, and only the rural places have a favorable view. But even then - hunting rifles and shotguns - no handguns, because deer hunting.

    I'd bet Mass has the same dynamic. Add in the more recent high profile shooting events and the anti-gun attitudes already part of the regional DNA just gets even harder.
     
  5. rust collector
    • Contributing Member

    rust collector Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,596
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    Another way of looking at this is our transition from a nation of producers to a nation of consumers. At one time in our history, our government granted vast tracts of land to subsidize railroads and the western expansion. The great industrial magnates (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and others) took advantage of this opportunity and prospered. The general view was that these titans of industry were providing jobs, making America great and raising the standard of living. In typical American fashion, (too much is not enough) the growth continued unchecked and soon we had environmental disasters, exploitation of the disadvantaged, and monopolies and trusts that limited the wealth to the biggest and some of the least principled tycoons. The pendulum swung back to correct these excesses in the form of trust-busters, environmental crackdowns and organized labor. The popular will was to move the smokestacks to someone else's backyard, and here we are. In that analysis, guns are just one of many industries that aren't "clean" or silicon based. They are also durable goods in a throwaway society. So it's not all a fiendish plot. It's our willingness to watch that 60" LED TV instead of seeing the big picture globally and taking the small steps that lead to a better future for the many, rather than me/mine.
     
    Jackalope 1, ontarget and unclenunzie like this.
  6. ClaymoreAKM

    ClaymoreAKM Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2017
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon - SC
    I grew up at the other end of the state. We had AKs, SKS, Garands, ARs. As the entire state started to become engulfed by NYC communism, I left many moons ago.

    It's good to be in free America.
     
  7. wis bang

    wis bang Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2021
    Messages:
    6
    I learned the diference years ago [1980 ish] showing pictures of a backpacking trip in the Poconos to co-workers in southern Bucks that included a customer from Brooklyn brought in house to schedule the NYC cyrogenics deliveries we were taking over.

    He flipped out over Jack wearing his 22 mag revolver in a leather holster like it was a batalion of Al-Quida blasting AK's skyward.

    I was suprised by this rabid reaction even if he was a backpaching guy. I had to realize he didn't grow up with firearms like I did.

    Later I married a Brooklyn born woman from college and went hunting two months after the Honeymoon.

    42 years later she is OK with my EDC but still wants to know as little a possible about guns N hunting.
     
    Jackalope 1 and unclenunzie like this.
  8. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,686
    Location:
    Southwestern IL-ANNOY
    This is another case of certain people deliberately obscuring (or forgetting) their history. Massachusetts was the home of the Minute Men at both Lexington and Concord. Colonial forces kept the British bottled up in Boston so they could do much damage to the countryside. Yet those currently in power blithely ignore history, determined to roll back to something similar to "English rule" before the Revolution when American colonists had essentially no rights. :fire:
    The problem is that they are not limited to Massachusetts and Connecticut anymore. :cuss:
     
    Jackalope 1, .308 Norma and amp-rat like this.
  9. Rockrivr1

    Rockrivr1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,622
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    You wouldn’t believe how far the residents of Lexington and Concord have fallen into complete liberalism. They even proposed to have the guns removed from the statues memorializing the happenings there. Complete moonbats.
     
    Jackalope 1, DoubleMag, Poper and 3 others like this.
  10. orpington

    orpington Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    863
    Folks may not want to hear this but without firearms, America would never have existed.
     
  11. bersaguy

    bersaguy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,215
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    [Warning...its a long one]

    Well, I look at like it like this. I'm in my 40's, I think back two generations ago to my grandparents time. They were born in the 1910's. At that time less than half the US population lived in urban areas. Firearms, for that majority of Americans, were an essential tool. So were axes, plows, knives and hammers. By the end of the war, late 40's early 50' you have my parents generation. By the time they come of age you have two major changes to the national landscape. Neary ¾ of the population lives in urban areas, and they have television. At that time, you have well over half the country growing up in homes were gun ownership is no longer required, it not a necessity of day to day living. A large portion of the population grows up never handling a firearm, or possibly even seeing one up close. But they do see the horrors of the Vietnam War on the evening news, Jack and Bobby Kennedy being assassinated, and Lee Harvey Oswald shot live on TV. Its one thing, in my grandparents time, to read about gangs in Chicago or motor bandits out west shooting it out with the police, and another in my parent's time to see these things happening live on television. Ok, but even then you have a significant amount of the population living in rural America, and a proportion living as "first generation urbanites" who have no ill feelings toward firearms. Then my generation, and to be honest, I may have the hardest time describing my own generation in terms of historical context because I'm in it. I will say this, I'm one of three in my family, and the only one who took interest in firearms and hunting in my youth. It was something my dad did when he was younger, but wasn't talked about or offered, I had to make the ask. I had a handfull of friends in school who hunted, this was in an fairly affluent suburban area, but hunting was a fairly neutral subject in our area. We saw the rise of the school shooting via Columbine, not only live on TV, but 24hrs a day on cable TV. Now, the next generation, our kids, are growing up in an era where over 80% of the population lives in urban areas. Now its 2nd and 3rd generation urbanites. And there's the internet. Some folks in urban areas, perhaps because of some experience such as the LA riots, general urban crime or most recently the BLM riots, have come to the realization that having a firearm for personal protection against human attackers may be the most prudent action. We see this movement in the focus of the firearms industry moving towards defensive arms and away from hunting specific arms. But there is now a majority of Americans who have not had any personal experience with shooting for sport or recreation or for defensive training. And we have an ever growing, incessant media, desperate for more and more content. And the internet, were now you can not only consume the content, you can create it. Content, that will be consumed by like minded people and regurgitated back to still more like minded people in a never ending, but compartmentalized feedback loop. (And yes I fully realize the irony that I'm doing exactly that right now) Look, I don't think the majority of liberals supporting gun control are evil people out to destroy the foundations upon which this country was founded. I think those people exist, but I think the majority of folks who support gun control are genuinely afraid, and they think legislation will keep them safe. I think they're wrong, I think they're ignorant (in the literal sense) but I think they truly believe they're doing what's best. And that's why I believe it is incumbent upon us to meet these folks where they are. Not in an argumentative way, but in the most inclusive way possible. Now, im not talking about inviting Chuck Schumer out for a round of sporting clays, but how about your neighbor who may seem a little on the fence? In any event, back to the OP's question, how did Mass and CT get to where they are.....it has been a slow, generational decline, the rise of urbanization, the voracious apatite of the media for sensational content, and the rise of armchair activism made possible by the internet.
     
  12. ontarget

    ontarget Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,205
    Location:
    Michigan (Gods country)
    It has to be urbanization and the belief that the .gov will protect us(them).
    The problem is, speaking for my state (MI), and I would assume CT and MA as well, the entire state is NOT urban.
    Our politics are swayed heavily by urban centers like Detroit and Lansing. But where I live, a 911 call will get you a response in not less than 20 minutes, possibly as much as 40 minutes. We need to be able to defend ourselves. Honestly, a day around here that you don't hear gun shots is the odd day. Everyone around here is a gun owner.
    The problem is that state legislatures don't see the difference between urban, with a cop every 3 blocks, and rural, with a deputy for 3 townships. That or they don't care.
    In the term "gun control" the key word is control. They only care about control.
    If that means they have to drive the historic industries out of the CT River Valley, so be it.
    If that means the rural subjects.... I mean citizens are to be disarmed so be that too.
     
    Jackalope 1, DoubleMag, Poper and 3 others like this.
  13. Tilos

    Tilos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,542
    Yes, and know that those industrialized urban areas in those states (Ct, NY, MA, NJ, VT, NH, etc) no longer exist.
    None of the new buildings being built there have shipping docks, the only "industry" left are a few defense industry companies, but they are bailing out too.

    Visit any former industrial city/town in CT and you'll see empty/falling down factories and former working class housing falling down in dis-repair.
    Those hold-ons left owning those 3 family homes cannot get any renters and are forced to offer their apartments as section 8 housing to pay the mortgage.

    The state buys up those old 3 family working class houses/former industrial mogul's big opulent homes, and add fire escapes, put a big diesel generator in the back yard, send $$$ of state funds to remodel them.
    Turning them into "group homes"/housing for the underprivileged citizens of CT.

    Then they move those underprivileged into these new group homes, taking them out of their big city element, away from family and friends.
    They can be seen walking the streets around their new home, bored, unemployed, and looking for um...opportunity.

    Sad, every time I go back to CT. and see the decline.
    To be fair, there is growth there, just not in the former industrial areas.
    Those areas have become bedroom towns for commuters to the big cities.

    Northwest CT is becoming weekend places for NY'ers who are trying to change everything there.
    I left in 1994 (after governor Lowell Wiecker) who passed the state income tax among other things.
    A former REP Senator (Watergate) who ran/was elected Governor as an independent.
    Wiecker was a one term Gov. with the objective of screwing the CT voters who elected Lieberman to his Senate seat, putting him out of the "elected for life" club.
    The CT. legislation passed anything proposed because nothing bad could be blamed on either party because of the independent Gov...a perfect storm.
    sorry for the rant/vent, I'll probably be back and delete most of it.
    jmo,
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2021
    Jackalope 1 and Airborne Falcon like this.
  14. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    7,846
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    Has the large number of colleges and universities also been a factor?

    I’m not hypothesizing this as a critical factor, but this high density of “academic detachment”, detached from reality, could not have been helpful.
     
    Jackalope 1 and .308 Norma like this.
  15. orpington

    orpington Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    863
    Back to the topic of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Why would they be so anti firearm when they provided jobs and prosperity to industrial workers? You all are blaming it on the increased urbanization of this country, but this is not specific to Connecticut and Massachusetts. Also, if no one wanted firearms jobs and industry elsewhere, just like in these two states, it seems you would hear of many protesting Smith & Wesson’s move to Tennessee. Lastly, many may not realize that a good portion of Connecticut and Massachusetts ARE rural.
     
  16. Steve S.

    Steve S. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    1,618
    Location:
    Missouri
    What I see is that the uproar over firearms is always associated with using them for their original design purpose which was (and as a design constant feature remains) to kill. Firearms are a harbinger of death; most people oppose killing - especially of them and theirs.
    We really have no way to control a person’s motives or mental health - much too overwhelming and complicated - so we do the next best thing - control the instrument which happens to be the firearm.
    If you are a black, inner-city dweller, your group getting wasted every single weekend by the hundreds seems to be an acceptable collateral damage loss that is used to continue the firearms argument but as we all know, the killing never really stops - just more killing every single weekend.
    I am rambling but to my point; I am an avid firearms owner and user - it is my favorite hobby by far - but I also have the sin of seeing both sides. I can also see the hypocrisy of both sides. The anti’s want to stop and control the indirect cause because they simply cannot control the real cause - the behavior - so everyone gets punished. The pro’s hide behind the 2A (as I do) because they are afraid that the anti’s may have a convincing position - no guns, no gun violence.
    There are enough numbers on both sides to stall any real progress, so the slaughter continues every single weekend in every major city in this Country, hundreds every single weekend. I often wonder how we are viewed by other nations when they read about the constant weekend slaughter. It is very counterintuitive to me when I weigh my respect for this country with what really happens here. To me, the contrast is sick and also laughable at the same time; in some aspects, this country and it’s citizens are a real joke. I don’t have the answers but I don’t have the argument either - we are where we are today because sadly and insanely, both sides have a point to their arguments while the slaughter continues. When one thinks about it objectively, it is a crazy thing.
     
  17. X62503

    X62503 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2019
    Messages:
    194
    Location:
    Vermont, U.S.A.
    Agree 100%.
     
    Jackalope 1, gifbohane and DustyGmt like this.
  18. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,709
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Take post #41 and for "firearms" substitute "alcohol", "marijuana", "abortion", "erotica".

    Ban something that people feel their use benefits them, their use does not harm others, and you create the condition of a significant number of previously law abiding people supporting a black market.
     
    Jackalope 1 likes this.
  19. Riomouse911

    Riomouse911 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    6,862
    Location:
    Ca.
    This question could be asked of many States.

    Ca was the hotbed of arms and weapons design, development and testing for decades; ships, aircraft, radar, bombs and missiles, etc. Wars were fought and won because of these industries and facilities based in Ca.

    Military bases and training areas are all over the state.

    Numerous non-legacy sporting arms manufacturers were based here like Weatherby, AMT, ArmaLite, Pachmayr, etc.

    It is mostly rural in area.

    On paper it looks like the perfect combo for a 2A sanctuary.

    Nope, it’s a state run by a few urban areas just like Ma, Ct, NY, Or, Wa, etc.

    Sad, but true.

    Stay safe.
     
  20. orpington

    orpington Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    863
    I asked specifically about Connecticut and Massachusetts because they are so rabidly anti firearm and yet the firearms industry originated and prospered in the Connecticut River Valley.

    Sort of a classic biting of the hand that feeds you.
     
    Jackalope 1, DustyGmt and Tilos like this.
  21. Tilos

    Tilos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,542
    Understand that the firearms industry originated/prospered in the CT. River Valley because of water power, not the beliefs of the people living there.

    Don't forget when Sears contracted with all those gun companies to build "Glenfield" and "Ted Williams" branded/rebadged guns.
    Once they all tooled up and hired people to build those guns, Sears started to squeeze the Mfg.'ers on the wholesale price, and the demise of those companies continued.
    jmo,
     
    orpington and Riomouse911 like this.
  22. stillquietvoice
    • Contributing Member

    stillquietvoice Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages:
    2,334
    Location:
    Upstate ny
    Their position is seriously flawed though, banning firearms will not stop violence at all. Those seeking g to harm others will find a different method, tool, with which to do violent acts.

    Large cities make up only a small portion of any state, but control the entire state by virtue of Large populations. 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.
     
    Jackalope 1, orpington and .308 Norma like this.
  23. LiberalVet

    LiberalVet Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2021
    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2021
  24. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,206
    Location:
    North Carolina
    There is a problem with compromise when one side sees the relinquishment of a small area as just a small step towards total control.

    First we compromised on registration of artillery and the big stuff.

    Then we compromised on registration of machine guns.

    Then on registration of silencers, short rifles, long pistols, things that "they" said we didn't need. like guns that don't look like guns, etc.

    Then we compromised on what kind of guns can be imported.

    Then we compromised on import of "combat" and "inexpensive" pistols.

    Then we compromised away any new manufactured machine guns.

    Then we compromised on how much steel was in a gun and what basic shape it must be.

    Then we compromised on the Brady Bill.

    Then we compromised on the AWP, and even though that little ten year period showed that those laws did not do what they were intended to do they want to come to a compromise that does the same thing again ("give on high-cap mags if that helps some people feel [good]").

    Then there are the "compromises" that aren't really compromises but imperial fiats from the chief executive.

    Sorry, but we have 'compromised' enough, none of these have done anything that they were supposed to do (reduce crime). All they have done is make it so only richer and richer people can exercise their 2A rights.
     
  25. wiscoaster

    wiscoaster Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2019
    Messages:
    2,860
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice