Four questions, how did certain states like Massachusetts become so anti 2A? Why did these states become anti 2A? Who benefits from making it so hard for the citizens to arm and protect themselves? And finally, is there a feasible way to turn it around?

[-]

sailor-jackn@reddit

When people in power want to have total unopposed control, as in an authoritarian socialist political faction, it helps to achieve that if the people they wish to control and dominate don’t have weapons with which to resist.

[-]

winston_smith1977@reddit

That's the bottom line. Leftist governments everywhere in the world oppose individual rights in favor of the collective good of the 'group', the group being the ruling cadres.

6000 years of recorded history is the blood soaked story of the powerful few doing everything possible to disarm the lowly many. Unarmed peasants are easier to rob, rape, murder and enslave.

[-]

Mammoth_Classroom896@reddit

Leftist governments everywhere in the world oppose individual rights in favor of the collective good of the 'group', the group being the ruling cadres.

You have an extremely naive view of politics if you don't think right-wing authoritarian governments do the exact same thing. Tyranny is tyranny no matter what color they use.

[-]

sailor-jackn@reddit

Exactly. It was the gun that gave the people the chance of liberty.

[-]

rocketstovewizzard@reddit

You are absolutely correct! They want you to be unarmed! Criminals don't count, because they will never organize against the government.

[-]

Aeropro@reddit

Lots of benefits for criminals if your party platform is basically everything is broken and we need to fix it. That doesn’t motivate people to vote if the public feels like things are going well.

[-]

Mammoth_Classroom896@reddit

The democrats party platform is basically everything is broken and we need to fix it

That's literally the republican platform as well. Both sides use the exact same strategy.

[-]

uChoice_Reindeer7903@reddit

Is this a joke, about criminals not organizing against the government?

[-]

HomeOfTheBRAAVE@reddit

You can't be pro-2A and vote Democrat. End of story.

[-]

dannicdmo@reddit

Deep blue Democratic states want to put, “The People”, under their control and make no mistake they fully understand what the second amendment was written for.

[-]

Agammamon@reddit

Who benefits?

The people in power who want to do things to you that you do not want them to do to you. That is who benefits.

[-]

tghost474@reddit

MA resident here. This is a routine question that comes about MA. There is another real reasons other than urbanization and the fact that 3 cities (boston worcester and Springfield) take over the states electorate because states don’t have the electoral college. Its since the bay colony massachusetts has always been a collective culturally and politically. The community has always put a lot of trust is corrupt officials religious or political. Compared to south or midwest where you were more expected to be on your own to defend your property and life. People in MA always have banded together by town or county to defend themselves. MA political culture reflects that the belief of good of the many over that of the individual. They don’t push. Back because simply most people in MA don’t push back thats also why you see a lot of “back the blue” signs and flags in what is a blue state. The government is entrenched but also doesn’t affect people lives enough for it to be an issue. Or people feel safe enough that they dont “see the need” when they feel they can call the cops.

[-]

gunplumber700@reddit

People have traded liberty and personal freedom for comfort and leisure. People have traded the personal responsibility for their own safety to the government for the government to provide for their safety.

It’s obvious somewhat more complicated than that and if you read the 5 or 6 most upvoted comments you’ll see good explanations of why, but it ultimately boils down to a big enough group of people giving away their (and frankly others) liberty, as corrupt politicians have usurped more power from people.

[-]

tghost474@reddit

MA resident here. This is a routine question that comes about MA. There is another real reasons other than urbanization and the fact that 3 cities (boston worcester and Springfield) take over the states electorate because states don’t have the electoral college. Its since the bay colony massachusetts has always been a collective culturally and politically. The community has always put a lot of trust is corrupt officials religious or political. Compared to south or midwest where you were more expected to be on your own to defend your property and life. People in MA always have banded together by town or county to defend themselves. MA political culture reflects that the belief of good of the many over that of the individual. They don’t push. Back because simply most people in MA don’t push back thats also why you see a lot of “back the blue” signs and flags in what is a blue state. The government is entrenched but also doesn’t affect people lives enough for it to be an issue. Or people feel safe enough that they dont “see the need” when they feel they can call the cops.

[-]

endmaga2028@reddit

It’s like any other subject that a large fraction of politicians talk about a lot: it gets them votes and donor money and elected into office so they can be corrupt.

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

This guy gets it.

This isn’t about red (R) or blue (D). This is about donor money and votes.

Republicans scream about violent crime. Yet, there are multiple, upon multiple, upon multiple sources (stopping with this one but there’s more) that show you violent crime is going down.

Violent crime is the Republican dog whistle.

Mass shootings are the democratic dog whistle.

I don’t have any specific sources but, if you look at how “liberal media sources” like CNN report on them, you can see a bias. Though the media coverage on both sides sensationalizes this and that’s a bad thing all around.

What do both of those two things have in common? Fear. Specifically, fear of the “what if”. What does this fear equate to politically? Votes.

What if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night?

What if someone shoots up the mall?

I need a gun/need to ban guns!

Neither side wants to truly disarm people. That’s also fear mongering. It’s too useful for both republicans and democrats. Just for slightly different surface reasons.

Also, gun manufacturers support both parties; they just trend Republican. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) PAC which is funded by several firearms manufacturers has donated to both parties for example. A specific manufacturer that I can think of off the top of my head is Sig. they’ve also donated to both parties via PACs.

How do we turn this around? Here’s the neat part, we can’t! Not with our current political system anyway. It’s one, too polarized. And two, has way too much money involved.

We need to stop boot licking for EITHER party. People need to put on their thinking caps, take a step back, and pull the curtain back and say, “found you wizard!” But sadly, a lot of “2A” people I encounter are unwilling to do this. As are a lot of the “anti 2A” people I know.

[-]

42ATK@reddit

Well, part of why violent crime is going down is because convictions for violent crime is going down because sweetheart deals are becoming more commonplace. Victim rates have gone up. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/cv24.pdf

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

So, the victimization rate they use is an estimate. The study even says, victimization estimate.

That said, some types of violent crime are under reported historically. Rape being the prime example. So I’m willing to admit that there is some under reporting.

That said, the only thing we can verify is that reporting has changed over the years. Increasing/decreasing as society shifts. I’d personally say that reporting has increased as modern technology, and decreasing victim blaming for crimes like rape, have made it easier to report violent acts.

You also need to also consider when this study was published; September 2025. Under the current administration that has both’ said that violent crime is a problem while POTUS openly called a citizen killed by ICE a criminal simply because he was legally carrying his firearm.

Now, plea deals are a thing. And sometimes, violent offenders do get better deals than they should. You’ve a very valid point there.

However, we are a punitive culture. Punitive measures almost never solve a problem. They just make the victims feel better. We as a society are unwilling to adapt true reformative justice like you see in the Nordic nations with low rates of repeat offenders for most crime. They do have some repeat offenders, but their rates for violent crime specifically range from 17% to 33% ish vs our 60% to 70% ish rates. Note the time period is different here, the Nordic is for a two year period whereas the US is for a 3-5 year period. This is a difference in how the data is collected. So an argument can be made that the rate is similar at various points in time and yes, that’s likely true. But over all, the Nordic country’s rates of repeat offenders are typically lower because they focus on rehabilitation vs punishment.

[-]

42ATK@reddit

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminal-victimization-2023

Numbers look the same here under the old admin. People getting out with plea deals means no convictions means for tracking crime is “down” unless you track victims. Tracking has been attacked by left leaning DAs in this way because it’s effective to ‘reduce crime’

Nordic culture is not American Culture, for many reasons. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Rearrest-Rates-for-Recidivism-Study-Offenders-by-Criminal-History-Points_fig4_297730192 We should lock people away that commit more than 5 violent crimes for life. Society would be better.

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

That is…false. A plea deal is a conviction. The sentencing is what’s different about them. You have to admit guilt for a we plea deal. That’s how they work. You plead guilty to X in exchange for Y (usually information about another subject). The courts do not have to accept them. A judge can reject a plea deal. They often don’t because they’re all over worked and people aren’t willing to pay more in taxes for more judges and AUSAs or state level attorneys/judges.

The victimization numbers are still an estimate. I still take the old admin’s reporting with a grain of salt. They had their own reasons for reporting the numbers the way they did. Don’t trust either party here.

Again, only the number that we can say has reliably changed is that of reported crimes.

And yes, we’re not the same culture. I’m not sure what your study has to do with that. But punishment doesn’t work or solve the problem. Nor would “locking them away for life.” The British, whom we adapted most of our legal system from, at one point had over 100 hanging offenses; including pick pocketing. You know what happened? The bad ones got caught and executed while the good ones pick pocketed the crowd gathered to watch the hanging. You have to address the reasons why people commit crime in the first place.

A lot of it boils down to a lack of economic opportunity. If I can take a person who has committed assault and battery during a robbery (a violent crime now vs just theft) and find out why they committed the root crime (the robbery). Is likely economic. They probably didn’t want to hurt anyone but they their victim resisted and they got into a fight.

If they turn their lives around and become say, a plumber, that’s a massive win. Yeah, they’re be failures. But rehabilitation works better than punishment.

Side note and nothing to do with the topic, that is one of the worst research sites I’ve ever been on (your second link). Horrible interface.

[-]

42ATK@reddit

Not when it’s plea for a lesser and unrelated charge

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

Still false. It’s still an admission of guilt to a crime. Maybe not necessarily the exact crime they committed, but it is still a guilty plea to crime Y that will result in punishment of X.

[-]

42ATK@reddit

And if you have a violent robbery crime plead down to a non violent charge youve reduced your violent crime rate. Try again.

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

One, violent crimes seldom get to plea down to non-violent offenses. It can happen, but it’s rare. It’s not the norm. Sometimes, there’s a an actual mitigating circumstance that caused the accused to react with violence.

Again, this is rare but it can happen.

And two, no. No you have not reduced the violent crime rate. You’ve reduced one statistical measurement of crime and that’s the conviction rate.

You’ve not reduced the reported rate or the indicted rate of violent crime. The formal reporting of the crime is still violent. The indictment is still a violent crime. The conviction statistic is what changed.

So, to quote, “try again.”

[-]

42ATK@reddit

Burden of proof is on you. I showed victim rates rising despite crime rates ‘dropping’

I’ve also provided the mechanism by which that happens. You’ve provided no counter argument aside from political rhetoric.

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

No.

I’ve countered your stance by pointing out to you that both of your studies only show estimated numbers of victimization. My original post on this topic had numerous links to show that violent crime is overall, trending down. The overall aggregate data across multiple studies, which is what you need to look at, shows a downward trend. You cannot look at one or two studies and say, “yep, violent crime is doing X, Y, or Z.” You need to look at several, upon several studies and then analyze them all. And overall, the trend is downward with some occasional upward spikes during times of unrest, like COVID.

I’ve pointed out to you that the method you pointed out for reducing violent crime rates is only one statistical measurement of crime.

It only looks at violent crime conviction rates. That’s one, and only one, measure of crime. You can also look at reported rates and indicted rates of violent crime. Both of which can also be massaged to show what you want it to show to the public, like conviction rates.

But when you look at all three measurements, you get a decent picture of what’s going on.

I’ve also said that I don’t trust either party. So how am I touting political rhetoric here?

[-]

Lower-Ad-1300@reddit

You get it ! Fear sells

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

Better than sex does at that.

[-]

DanTalent@reddit

Bloomberg...

[-]

TheAmbiguousAnswer@reddit

It's not about politics or votes or money or whatever it is.

I am from NJ. We are very similar to MA politically and gun-wise.

MA, like NJ, has a lot of local/state/federal government employees. I am a state employee myself.

Once a state has a HUGE part of its workforce become government, the state will reliably become "blue" because the government employees will vote for the party that will continue to expand the size of the state bureaucracy forever, because that keeps the state employees paid, and keeps the pension money going too.

Because the government employees will vote blue no matter who to keep their jobs and pensions, the DNC can try whatever it wants, whether that be the LGBTQIA+ stuff of insane gun restrictions. The voting base will just hold their nose to vote for it.

I know state employees who are further right than most people I know, and complain about the NJ gun restrictions, but they will ALWAYS vote Democrat in local/state elections because it ensures they get paid and a pension (even if that means screwing over the rest of the state, as what is slowly happening in NJ).

That is what we are seeing happening in VA.

There are plenty of blue/purple states where the populace doesn't have huge swaths of it being employed by a government of some level, and the crazy anti-gun shit doesn't happen there because of it - the DNC can't just rely on free votes from government workers.

[-]

1Crusty_Old_Man@reddit

Is your foot nailed to the ground?

Move.

Some states are a lost cause.

[-]

Club_Penguin_Legend_@reddit

What if you cant afford to move? Should poor people not have guns?

[-]

Stock_Block2130@reddit

Democrats. Democrats. Democrats. Vote Republican in spite of some their stranger priorities.

[-]

EUGsk8rBoi42p@reddit

Ultra blue and giant cities like Boston end up allowing rampant crime, so they just punish citizens who follow the law as a way of justifying higher policing expenses.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

I think we should take a deep look into who’s funding/starting these anti 2A groups. I have a hunch that they are or are backed by either CCP or the tiny hat gang.

[-]

Aeropro@reddit

I have a hunch that they are or are backed by either CCP or the tiny hat gang.

The Shriners?

[-]

passinghorses@reddit

The Shriners are the tiny car gang. Their fez is the normal size.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

Nah, a tiny location in a certain region bombing innocent civilians while making the US cuck for them.

The Voldemort of people if you will.

[-]

Th3HappyCamper@reddit

It feels counterintuitive to a ridiculous degree but I think a lot of the pressure is coming from Conservative orgs and think tanks, indirectly. Commies are extremely pro-firearm and it’s an inseparable part of their ideology. This holds true even when affecting other countries. The Communist Party of China would likely prefer the American citizenry is armed.

I know this goes against most narratives but I have found it really interesting.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

I’d be interested to see what sources you have read regarding this, this is the first time I’ve ever read about a communist country being cool with armed enemies.

Power is an odd thing and it makes people do weird shit, that’s for sure.

[-]

Th3HappyCamper@reddit

Mao Zedong’s ideology asserts that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. The way China operates is to attempt to win without firing a bullet or being directly involved overtly. A commie uprising in another country would be their only way of fulfilling their goals without deviating from their party ideology.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

That makes sense, now they’ve managed to have control of the masses without violence and now have a large amount of “underpaid workers”.

[-]

Th3HappyCamper@reddit

Yeah feels like we are headed that way too for some stupid reason

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

Felt like Covid was the test phase to see how far they could push Americans. Seems similar to the same style tactics you describe from Mao.

[-]

Th3HappyCamper@reddit

Agreed, but I didn’t expect us to be so complacent anyway. The tactics share a lot of similarities w Mao and also some Lenin. Authoritarians who aren’t commie/socialist tend to copy/paste their ideas since repression doesn’t need ideology.

I hope we move past our difference in opinions and can focus on why the 2A exists. It is explicitly for the American people.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

Yea it’s pretty obvious yet the only thing people focus on is who’s going to give someone free shit these days. No one wants to work or earn what they want. Obvious there are case by case situations and some people truly need assistance.

I fear we are past the point of return though.

[-]

Th3HappyCamper@reddit

Hopefully people will get angry enough to take a strong position against where we are going. Id like people to feel like their rights aren’t given to them by government, but they are your rights inherently and you will be taking them.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

I totally agree.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

the tiny hat gang

Oh wow, flagrant antisemitism. Why speak in code and not just be open about your views on Jews?

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

A gang is term for a group of people, not an entire race. Didn’t think I’d need to specify AIPAC with it being the obvious. No need to hide behind dog whistles. Beef is strictly with their murderous government and the fuckery they are pulling with our nation including using our service members as pawns.

Figured with all that “reading between the lines” you woulda knew that. Guess not

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

You could have just said Israel. Criticism of the nation state of Israel is valid, and entirely allowed by both the subreddit and website.

You chose to make it about "The Jews" for a reason. Now you're too much of a chicken shit to even stand by your views.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

Quite the assumption but ok. As of now, you have interpreted my comments Incorrectly so it doesn’t matter what I say.

I’m sure this comment has some secret squirrel Jew hate too, I’m sure you’ll find it.

My play on words with “tiny hat gang” was being used the same way Voldemort is, “one not to be discussed”

Nothing more.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

How about you go edit your comment to actually call out AIPAC then?

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

I’m just confused as to why you are trying to police how I deliver a comment? You must be cool with them bombing innocents by how hard you are going at this.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Because I don't like antisemitism and shitheads giving the 2A community a bad name.

Again, you can change it to say AIPAC or Israel. Of that's what you actually mean, why wouldn't you?

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

If you read my previous comments, I specifically stated that AIPAC was the obvious point and didn’t think it was needed. There are groups and social media pages for politicians listing out every US politician who’s paid by AIPAC so we DONT vote for them.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Again, you can edit your top level comment to remove the dog whistle and just say AIPAC.

It's very telling that you refuse to do so.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

Nah I won’t, be upset all you want. You can continue to misinterpret and put words in my mouth all you want, but the comments will stay as they are ❤️

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

At least until the mods and/or reddit takes them down. Nobody is buying your bullshit. We know what you meant, and we know why you're trying so hard to defend it.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

lol I’m not defending anything, I’m simply responding to some dumbass who assumes what my actual comments say.

Have a great day ❤️

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Again, quit your bullshit.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

That’s why I’m not editing or deleting anything, I’ll let the mods read everything verbatim. Again, never said I hated Jews. My terms “tiny hat gang” is a play on words of their gov. Your interpretations are yours alone.

Going hard over nothing. While having a handle as the ATF 🤣

[-]

sygyzy0@reddit (OP)

My friends and I definitely speculate that a large part of seemingly anti American and anti citizen and anti constitution sentiment is backed by those groups you mentioned. Because not too many other theories make sense as to why they’d make it so much of a a point to disarm and disadvantage law abiding citizens, it’s everything but (technically) infringing on the second amendment. The 10 round capacity restriction bothers me more than anything because I’ve seen felons with my own two eyes, in person with a .50 cal Glock. This was before I was licensed but still, 10 rounds isn’t shit when 9 times out of 10 if a bad guy with a gun is trying to take something from you whether that be your belongings or your life, they’re coming with more than 10 rounds. They’re coming with 30 rounds plus, 9mm, 10mm, 380, 762, 556, like come on. It’s like they want people to die and be victims

I’ve seen

[-]

Chauncy1911@reddit

.50 cal Glock?!....

[-]

sygyzy0@reddit (OP)

Yep, first time ever finding out they’re a thing, a family member who’s a felon bought it off the streets

[-]

volckerwasright@reddit

Its wild that you responded to the groyper bot (look up what tiny hat is slang for) instead of the people telling you the truth. Compare red v blue state gun laws.

[-]

sygyzy0@reddit (OP)

Oh?

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

A groyper bot? What is that? Like a transformer play on words like autobot?

[-]

JuniorCaptainTenneal@reddit

Why would the Jews want to take away our guns? Think critically.

[-]

Edwardteech@reddit

The Russians had control of the NRA for 20 years.

[-]

PissFingerz42069@reddit

I’m sure they are in it too

[-]

loki993@reddit

How did Massachusetts becomes so anti 2a / why did these states become so anti-gun?

Because Massachusetts is a very blue state and that political party that has made being anti-gun and gun control as a cornerstone of their political platform.

These states aren't necessarily completely or even majorly anti gun. These states have large urban areas, that vastly outnumber the amount of people in rural areas sometimes combined. These urban areas usually vote for that political party.

Who benefits?

The government. There more they make their constituency like subjects the better and the more control they can impart on them without the fear of resistance.

Is there a feasible way to turn it around?

Theoretically, you would vote in politicians that actually care about your rights and would fight to give them back.

Realistically no because of the aforementioned fact that there are areas in the state that will continue to vote in anti gun politicians and those areas are so populous that the other areas that may not want that particular politician cannot overcome it.

[-]

Der_Blaue_Engel@reddit

Urbanization.

Urbanization kills gun culture.

I live in the country. I routinely grab my AR, post a target on the hillside behind my house, and start sending rounds downrange.

During deer season, I roll out of bed, throw on an orange hat and vest, and spend five minutes walking to my stand.

I used to live in a city about 45 minutes away. When I wanted to shoot, my options were to pay a bunch of money to go to an indoor range, hop on a years-long waiting list for a gun club, or take my life in my own hands by going to a DNR range about 30 minutes away that had really restrictive hours and no range officer.

Going hunting meant either waking up at 3:00 AM or camping out the night before. And that was only because my family owned land I could hunt on. I never even bothered trying public land.

I grew up in the country, as had my parents and grandparents. I was exposed to gun culture from birth. Had I grown up in the city, I probably would have never developed an interest in guns, especially if my parents and grandparents had no use for them.

People in cities have few opportunities to use guns for good.

If I’m mowing my lawn now and hear gunfire, it’s because some dad is having fun with his son. If I heard gunfire when I lived in the city, it meant something was very wrong.

In the country, gunfire is rarely a problem. In the city, gunfire is usually a problem.

91.3% of the people in Massachusetts live in an urban area. It’s one of the most heavily urbanized areas in the country, and it’s been that way for generations.

The average person there doesn’t grow up hunting and shooting. Neither did their parents and grandparents.

Guns exist primarily as some bad thing they hear about on the news.

In that environment, gun control will get politicians votes.

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

This is…a valid point to an extent. There’s some places where the firearm culture still exists with a high population density…but those places also require mandatory military service. The Swiss for example have a robust firearm culture but they also require mandatory military service. Or they did…I do not know if they still do or not. But I do know you can acquire K31’s with recentish (2020s) competition stickers on them.

But overall, I’d say you’re mostly correct. As someone else already pointed out, economy of scale. It’s not a problem if I go out to my parents still in the country and shoot. But if I was able to safely do so in my back yard, the noise alone would be an issue for my neighbors.

[-]

BlackSquirrel05@reddit

Yeah I don't get how other people don't get this.

Everything is about economies of scale. There's a tipping point for everything. It's not a problem until l it is.

Cars are fine until you deal with traffic every day all year long... Then because there's so much traffic people's behaviors change when driving to be more erratic, to be more reckless.

I'd dare to speculate that more people in rural America would have an issue with firearms if bullets were sent more their direction minding their own business, just like in the cities. You're walking down the street minding your own business or in your 2 flat or apartment and random bullets come into your home...

Who isn't upset by this?

It's like people on here always asking about XYZ for XYZ critter (bears, coyotes, pigs etc) It's a worry you have to consider and be vigilante enough about.

Same concept... It's just random bullets instead of running into a random brown bear.

[-]

PositiveMix9649@reddit

Greater population density means people are going to be more often brought into conflict with each other and ultimately shoot other people.

States w/ lower population density are going to have fewer shootings, even w/ plenty of firearms owned.

Blue states have higher population densities.

[-]

consultantdetective@reddit

Totally right. And to connect this to gun bans, democrats' strategy since ~2010 has been in response to the increasing share of urban voters relative to rural voters. An idea that it is okay to lose the vote of someone out in the sticks if they tend to gain a more than one vote in/near the city. Combine this with an observably increasingly diverse and urban country, dems thought, and many still do think, that this is the strategy. That it's fine to leave the rural places at +40/50% Red:blue as long as they got comparable margins in the cities.

I'd also add there's a different kind of perception of safety. Lots rural counties will have higher homicide rates than urban counties. But when a homicide happens in a city, >10x more people feel near the crime than if that same homicide were to happen on the other side if your county in someone's home. Since city voters tend to feel more "oh shit that could've been me" if someone's killed, because it happened not a 10min walk from them, they're a lot more agreeable to the idea of all agreeing on certain restrictions for who owns what.

[-]

dunksoverstarbucks@reddit

It's never really been big here I think there are only. 10k ltc holders here and the state used to make you jump through so many hoops to get one and now they changed requirements again so even harder

[-]

Lampwick@reddit

Urban/rural ideological divide. Because urban areas require so much government intervention in everything from traffic control to zoning to crime management, the people that live there tend to skew towards thinking the government should handle everything. Rural tends to default to the wacky American frontier ideal of the "rugged individualist", where a person is responsible for themselves and doesn't depend on the government for anything because our on the frontier, there is no central government. This ideal was so fundamental to this country that it got baked into our constitution. Foreigners make fun of this aspect of American culture, but it's a key factor in what made the US become such an incredible military and economic powerhouse over the last 150 years. Unfortunately, the rise in urban population has gradually watered down that individualist culture with a more bureaucratic, paternalistic European one. There are no frontiers anymore, so the struggle to maintain a frontier mindset gets harder every year.

[-]

Kite005@reddit

It sucks but it's still worth it. I'm casting a Commander 10 rds. Extra mags should never be needed but it's an option.

[-]

GreenRangers@reddit

These states have a lot of very wealthy people. Wealthy people live in gated communities and have private security. They don't really need guns or know anything about them. They just don't want other people to have them because that makes them feel less safe. The wealthy people make the laws

[-]

JefftheBaptist@reddit

Basically Democrats take control and pass "common sense gun control laws." The big one they really like is requiring permits for firearms ownership. Because this is what essentially kills gun culture. They are structured to be a poll tax on gun ownership and the culture melts away under the weight of it.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

They elected Democrats.
They elected Democrats.
The Government.
Stop electing Democrats.

It really is that simple. Vote Democrat, get gun bans.

The problem is, especially recently, the Republicans are trying very hard to get people to vote Democrat.

Just remember you have more than 2 choices, but if you elect Democrats you will get gun bans. Just ask every state that flips blue. Most recently Washington and Virginia.

[-]

PacoBedejo@reddit

FPtP says they only have two floating choices. Without a huge shift in the populace, it's D or R.

I'm a single issue (2A) voter, so I usually hold my nose and pick R because anyone who wants to disarm us earns a counter-vote in self-defense. I also vote against judge retention because they're all acting beyond the founding charters.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

FPtP got us into the mess we are in. I will not continue to support the system that created the problem.

Your politicians won't change until your voting habits change.

[-]

PacoBedejo@reddit

Support?

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Yes. If you plug your nose and just go along with "lesser evil" because FPtP then you are supporting the FPtP system.

As long as you keep going along with it, it has no incentive to change.

[-]

PacoBedejo@reddit

Is a self-defense shoot "supporting violence", too?

Fucking idiot.

[-]

DMElyas@reddit

Your responses here tell everyone the truth, you didn't "pinch your nose and vote R" you ran to the polls with a boot in your mouth already and now you are too ashamed to admit it

[-]

Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit

Ashamed of what? Not voting for blatantly anti-gun candidates?

[-]

PacoBedejo@reddit

Some people are ignorant of what first-past-the-post means mathematically.

[-]

DMElyas@reddit

Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil. Find a third party that fits your views

[-]

PacoBedejo@reddit

I don't cast a vote in races where none of the candidates have anti-2A positions. Just against those who do, which usually means countering with the R button.

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Whataboutism is not an argument.

Your politicians have no incentive to change if you keep propping up their system which keeps them in power.

[-]

PacoBedejo@reddit

Self-defense matters. Most people stay home. Staying home does fuck-all.

"whataboutism"... Fucking idiot...

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Cope harder

[-]

hotelwhiskey291@reddit

Liberals.

Liberal agenda

Liberal talking points get liberal votes, Criminals and tyrannical government

Stop voting for liberals

[-]

BlackSquirrel05@reddit

V. the people in charge now that readily called some dude a terrorist and shouldn't bring a lawfully carried firearm to a protest and shot him in the back and then blamed him for shooting him in his back while 7 other dudes were on top of him after being pepper sprayed and beaten?

The same people that then responded with also folks shouldn't open carry in their own neighborhoods when outsiders march in. (Not talking LEO btw...) Then finally when they started the cops showed up to do their jobs?

The same folks that had memos about ignoring the 4th amendment?

Those people?

Bro get back to pretending to be a 21 year-old women with big tits, and writing about your family incest fantasies.

[-]

hotelwhiskey291@reddit

So you're advocating to vote for liberals? You're denying that banning firearms is apart of the liberal agenda?

Obviously you're a liberal can't cope with reality and doesn't know the facts... The two key ingredients to being a liberal lol.

[-]

kreynlan@reddit

MA resident here. You're actually mistaken about glocks. You can still get them. The roster is meaningless because frame transfers are legal.

[-]

juggarjew@reddit

If you live in Mass you basically need to know an LEO and be good friends with one to get what you want.

[-]

EarlyCuylersCousin@reddit

It’s insane to me that a state with the history of Massachusetts that brought us the Minutemen and was integral to the founding of this nation would be anti-2A. It makes no sense.

[-]

Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit

Urbanization, modern progressivism, and foreign immigrant demographics increase.

[-]

PositiveMix9649@reddit

For most MA voters, crime has dropped to the point where other people owning guns looks like a bigger risk than you having a gun to protect yourself.

[-]

Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit

Urbanization has played a big role. The Northeast has always been a more progressive part of the country since at least the early 1700s after moving on from their Puritan origins. However there's always been a backdrop of traditionalism and respecting constitutional rights at least until recent decades. The milita system in the Northeast largely fell out of use after the War of 1812, saw a revival during the Civil War, and then flatlined. So you didn't have training meet ups in the Northeast anymore like it continued in the South. So the firearm culture that continued in the Northeast largely was a hunting one and maybe keeping a pistol in the house for self defense.

What's changed has been urbanization and more diverse immigrant demographics. Massachusetts is largely an urban state now, compare that to Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. All three have constitutional carry, relatively free gun laws, and are rural. Granted, the progressive anti-gun dogma of the national Democratic Party has trickled down in recent years and you've seen pieces of gun control passed in Vermont and Maine but still nothing like Massachusetts.

Urban demographics see firearms in a different light than rural or even suburban ones. They either lack exposure, don't have the cultural background in them, or the exposure they do have is through gang violence or crime. So firearms are seen as a necessary evil tool of last resort at best, or something not worth the trouble and bad at worst.

The Democratic Party has willingly traded their rural voter base for an increasingly concentrated urban and progressive one.

[-]

Severe-Cow-8646@reddit

It all began with New York's Sullivan Act. Ironically a law pushed by one group of criminals to disarmed another group of criminals (Irish v Italian) Over time the progressives began conflating guns with crime and from there we get to here. Notice that the strictest anti gun laws are in the regions of the nation with the highest rates of organized and gang driven crime.

[-]

jawnnie@reddit

It’s anti 2A b/c this state attracts immigrants and liberal transplants who are not used to guns/scared of guns. Take a look at the governor & Boston mayor… they’re leftist transplants. As for who benefits from this, the coastal elites who live in expensive neighborhoods want to gatekeep average citizens from having options to defend themselves. Not just guns either. MA is anti self defense state. You’d need license to carry in order to equip stun gun/mace and cannot buy pepper spray out of state/online only in-person at MA gun dealerships. Lastly, no, IMO, 2A in MA is pretty much dead, the biggest hurdle is that the courts here are against 2A and guns, personally I moved to NH last year after getting medically discharged from active duty, as I had several firearms that would be considered having assault weapon features according to Healey and her gun bill. I might sound pessimistic but honestly I highly doubt New England region would remain pro 2A in the future….

[-]

I_LAUGH_AT_TYRANNY@reddit

Virginia has entered the chat

[-]

Username7239@reddit

You can still purchase Glocks in MA. You must still do them via frame transfer, but pretty much every single dealer will do this. It's because our pistol roster isn't actually a law, but a consumer safety protection guideline and frame transfers are how dealers comply with it.

[-]

wcrispy@reddit

Democrat run areas import crime as a mean to ensure idiots vote for more government to "fix" the problems the government created. Then they drop a ton of laws reducing freedom to "fight crime" that they imported. This ensures a revolving door of people in the system. Fees. Fines, Permits. Jail. Court costs. It's all garbage to take everyone's money and launder it into politician's pockets.

[-]

Shadowmc12@reddit

🎯 🎯 🎯

[-]

Sawfish1212@reddit

MA has had one party rule for over 50 years and that party is the "scary black gunz bad" party that can easily get money from big anti-gun donors like Bloomberg.

VA is the current poster child for this, but NY and other blue states suffer from the same disease. Meanwhile the powers that be cut gang members loose and drop serious gun charges for other blue causes like race.

[-]

BA5ED@reddit

The downfall started when the Springfield Armory shutdown. So much of the supply chain that supported that withered away and the incentive for the politicians to fight for it also went away. Everything is financially motivated.

[-]

bobroberts1954@reddit

MA is dominated by the greater Boston area. High population density is anti gun because of the danger to uninvolved people; bullets going through walls and hitting neighbors for instance. Low density areas aren't as endangered by errant rounds and so the safety provided by guns dominated the conversation.

[-]

averyycuriousman@reddit

Cities are always liberal. Those places are mostly urban.

[-]

WillBrink@reddit

MA, where Liberty began and ended. 😏

[-]

SnowDin556@reddit

Mafia activity hubs get hit the hardest.

[-]

C-R_Collector@reddit

If that were true, then Nevada would have some of the strictest firearm laws in the nation due to Las Vegas considering that city only exists as it is today because of mafia influence.

While Bugsy Siegel only took over the Flamingo from its initial developer, the mafia was responsible for the development of the city from about 1940 through the 1960s. Specially after Bugsy’s death in 1947 is when the mafia fueled growth took off with the Sands and Stardust.

[-]

SnowDin556@reddit

Fair point

[-]

ItCouldaBeenMe@reddit

Plenty of stores that sell Glocks for less than $700 here in MA. In fact you can buy any handgun now that frame transfers have been okay’d by the FRB.

Stop dealing with the stores that have given you misinformation.

[-]

Good times make soft people

Soft people make hard times